UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NADER ZAKI ABDELHAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CR-03-89)
Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James O. Broccoletti, ZOBY & BROCCOLETTI, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael C.
Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial, Nader Zaki Abdelhay was
convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and making
materially false statements to a federal agent, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2000). The district court sentenced Abdelhay
to concurrent sentences of forty-one months of imprisonment on each
count, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
On appeal, Abdelhay maintains that the evidence at trial
was insufficient to find him guilty of being a felon in possession
of a firearm and ammunition. Abdelhay stipulated at trial that he
had been convicted of a felony and that the firearm and ammunition
in question had traveled in interstate commerce. In addition,
there was evidence establishing that Abdelhay exercised dominion
and control over the firearms and ammunition found at his place of
employment. Therefore, we conclude that there was sufficient
evidence at trial to find Abdelhay guilty of being a felon in
possession of a firearm and ammunition. See Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
Accordingly, we affirm Abdelhay’s § 922(g) conviction.
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
- 2 -