UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4172
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD E. WILKERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00207-LO-1)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Carolyn V.
Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt,
Appellate Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Brandon
Michael Santos, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald E. Wilkerson was found guilty of possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006),
and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine base), under
21 U.S.C.A. § 844(a) (West Supp. 2011), and was sentenced to 108
months of imprisonment, within his advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are
no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issues: (1) whether the district court erred when it took
judicial notice of the fact that the City of Richmond is located
in the Eastern District of Virginia, rather than granting
Wilkerson’s motion for acquittal based on a failure of proof of
venue; and (2) whether the trial was rendered fundamentally
unfair when the prosecutor argued facts at closing argument not
entered into evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We address counsel’s Anders issues in turn. First,
venue is proper in any district in which the crime was
committed. 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) (2006). The Government bears
the burden of proving venue by a preponderance of the evidence.
United States v. Ebersole, 411 F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir. 2005).
The Government can prove this element by direct or
circumstantial evidence, however, and whether an offense
occurred within particular geographical boundaries is an
2
appropriate subject for judicial notice. United States v.
Kelly, 535 F.3d 1229, 1235-36 (10th Cir. 2008).
Next, Wilkerson claims prosecutorial misconduct
because the Government stated at closing argument that he had
previously been convicted of four felonies. The district court
sustained defense counsel’s objection to this statement with
defense counsel noting that Wilkerson testified that he had only
been convicted of two prior felonies. We review this claim to
determine whether the conduct so infected the trial with
unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due
process. United States v. Morsley, 64 F.3d 907, 913 (4th Cir.
1995). Although we find that the prosecutor’s statement at
closing arguments improper, Wilkerson has failed to show that
the remarks prejudicially affected his substantial rights so as
to deprive him of a fair trial. United States v. Mitchell, 1
F.3d 235, 240 (4th Cir. 1993); see United States v. Wilson, 135
F.3d 291, 299 (4th Cir. 1998) (listing factors used to determine
the question of prejudice).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm Wilkerson’s conviction and sentence. This
court requires that counsel inform Wilkerson, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Wilkerson requests that a petition be filed,
3
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Wilkerson. 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