UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4530
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN RAY MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-4532
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER RYAN HAYES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie,
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00855-CMC-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina; Joshua S. Kendrick,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Winston D. Holliday, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Stephen Ray Miller and Christopher
Ray Hayes of robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)
(2006), and of using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during
the commission of the robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) (2006). On appeal, Miller and Hayes argue that the
district court erred in denying their motion for acquittal on
the basis of sufficiency of the evidence, contending that the
Government must prove that the firearms used were capable of
expelling projectiles by explosive actions. We affirm.
On December 23, 2007, Hayes and two co-conspirators
robbed a Walgreens pharmacy of controlled substances. On
January 23, 2008, Hayes, Miller, and one of the two co-
conspirators from the prior robbery robbed another Walgreens
pharmacy. Video surveillance and testimony of the two co-
conspirators and several eyewitnesses, including the store
managers, pharmacists, a cashier, and others confirmed that
Hayes and Miller used guns during the robberies. Appellants
contend that the Government failed to prove that the guns
carried by them during the robberies were capable of expelling a
projectile by an explosive action, as set forth in the
definition of firearm in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) (2006).
Appellants assert that absent such proof, the evidence was
insufficient to support their firearm convictions.
3
A conviction under § 924(c) can be sustained solely on
the strength of testimony of lay witnesses unfamiliar with
firearms, and no expert testimony is required. See United
States v. Jones, 907 F.2d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 1990). In this
case, numerous witnesses testified that Miller and Hayes used
guns during the robberies, and guns are visible in the
surveillance videos. Thus, substantial evidence supports the
convictions for use of a firearm during the commission of the
robberies, and the district court did not err in denying the
motion for acquittal. See United States v. Redd, 161 F.3d 793,
797 (4th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, we affirm Miller’s and Hayes’
convictions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4