UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4334
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BILLY LEWIS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00482-HEH-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2008 Decided: January 21, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Grossman, CROWGEY & GROSSMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Shana
Wallace, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Lewis was indicted for possession with intent to
distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (Count 1) and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride
(“cocaine powder”) (Count 2). He was found guilty of both
counts and sentenced to 252 months of imprisonment. On appeal,
Lewis raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was
sufficient to support his conviction for Count 2; (2) whether
the district court erred by failing to give a lesser-included-
offense instruction for Count 2; and (3) whether the district
court erred by considering historical evidence of Lewis’ drug
dealing for purposes of sentencing. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
First, viewing the evidence as required, we find Count
2 is supported by substantial evidence, and therefore the
district court properly denied Lewis’ motion for acquittal on
this count. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942);
United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005).
Second, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
decision to deny Lewis a lesser-included-offense instruction for
possession of cocaine for Count 2. S. Atl. Ltd. P’ship v.
Riese, 284 F.3d 518, 530 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard).
Finally, we perceive no clear error in the district court’s
factual findings regarding drug weight attributable to Lewis
2
based on his prior drug dealing. United States v. Daughtrey,
874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989) (providing standard); see
United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 312-13 (4th Cir. 2004)
(referencing U.S Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(2) cmt.
n.9(B)) (2007) and noting that when a defendant has committed
multiple offenses similar to the charged offense, that conduct
may be considered as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes).
Accordingly, we affirm Lewis’ convictions and
sentence. Although we grant Lewis’ motion to file a pro se
supplemental brief, we find no meritorious issues raised
therein. 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