UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4939
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARTEZ COLEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-01-506)
Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 28, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Toal, JOHNSON, TOAL & BATTISTE, P.A., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Martez Coleman was convicted after a jury trial of
membership in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and
to distribute cocaine base and powder, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2000), possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000), killing, or counseling,
commanding, inducing, or procuring, and aiding and abetting in a
killing while involved in a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000), 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) (2000), and
using a firearm in a drug crime or crime of violence, murder, and
aiding and abetting in murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2000), 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) (2000). Coleman was sentenced to life
sentences for these offenses. Coleman has timely appealed.
On appeal, Coleman asserts that the district court erred
by (1) allowing the Government to bolster the testimony of two
Government witnesses; (2) permitting the Government to introduce a
witness’ testimony that effectively punished Coleman for exercising
his right to remain silent; and (3) denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33
motion for a new trial. We review a district court’s evidentiary
rulings for abuse of discretion. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522
U.S. 136, 141-42 (1997). A district court’s denial of a Fed. R.
Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial is also reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Arrington, 757 F.2d 1484, 1486 (4th
Cir. 1985).
- 2 -
Following careful review of the record, we reject
Coleman’s claims as meritless. The testimony of the two witnesses
in question was not impermissibly bolstered, United States v.
Lewis, 10 F.3d 1086, 1089 (4th Cir. 1993); Coleman’s right to
remain silent was not infringed by the testimony of another
witness, United States v. Whitehead, 618 F.2d 523, 527 (4th Cir.
1980); and Coleman failed to satisfy the requirements necessary to
receive a new trial, United States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d 788, 793
(4th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, we affirm Coleman’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
- 3 -