UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4457
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN LEWIS REID, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-02-4)
Submitted: May 7, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig W. Sampson, SAMPSON LAW FIRM, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J.
Elston, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Lewis Reid, Jr., appeals his conviction for being a
felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1)(2000), and possession of a stolen firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j)(2000).
The charges against Reid arose when, during a traffic
stop, police officers saw Reid, a passenger in the stopped vehicle,
handling a firearm. Reid contends that the evidence at trial was
insufficient to establish that the traffic stop was legal. As the
Government points out, Reid’s counsel withdrew the suppression
motion. Nevertheless, the district court conducted a hearing, at
which it found the stop was proper. Our review of the record
establishes that the district court’s conclusion was not plainly
erroneous. See United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1277 (4th
Cir. 1995); see also Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 130 n.1
(1978) (noting that the defendant bears the burden of proving his
Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or
seizure).
Reid also contends that his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to contact and present witnesses who would have
provided beneficial testimony. To succeed on a claim of
ineffective assistance on direct appeal, a defendant must show
conclusively from the face of the record that counsel provided
ineffective representation. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d
- 2 -
192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999) (providing standard and noting that
ineffective assistance of counsel claims generally should be raised
by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)). After careful review of
the record, we conclude that Reid has not demonstrated that his
counsel rendered ineffective assistance. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Richardson, 195 F.3d at 198.
Finally, Reid contends that the district court erred by
sentencing him as an armed career criminal. To attain armed career
criminal status, a defendant must have three prior convictions for
a violent felony or a serious drug offense. U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4(a) (2002); 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2000).
Reid challenges the use of a burglary conviction, but that
conviction qualifies as a violent felony. See Taylor v. United
States, 495 U.S. 575, 598-99 (1990). Moreover, that Reid was
sentenced to only six months imprisonment does not disqualify this
prior conviction. Under the statute, a crime that is punishable by
one year imprisonment may qualify as a violent felony, regardless
of the sentenced actually imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B).
Additionally, we conclude that Reid’s conviction for throwing a
missile into an occupied dwelling also qualifies as a violent
felony, as his actions presented a serious potential risk of
physical injury to those occupying the residence. 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e)(2)(B). The third predicate conviction, for maiming, is
not challenged.
- 3 -
Accordingly, we affirm Reid’s conviction and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -