UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4120
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERNEST JAMES JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00054-1)
Submitted: August 31, 2012 Decided: September 11, 2012
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dana F. Eddy, EDDY LAW OFFICE, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Joseph
F. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ernest James Johnson appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal or,
alternatively, for a new trial. On appeal, Johnson contends
that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of possession
of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006), and that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. We
affirm.
Johnson contends that there was insufficient evidence
before the jury to support his § 924(c) conviction. Johnson
challenges only the jury’s finding that he possessed the firearm
in furtherance of the drug trafficking offense. A jury verdict
must be sustained “if, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, the verdict is supported by
substantial evidence.” United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209,
216 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether
a firearm “furthered, advanced, or helped forward a drug
trafficking crime . . . is ultimately a factual question.”
United States v. Perry, 560 F.3d 246, 254 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record
and conclude that the Government presented sufficient evidence
from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt
2
that Johnson was guilty of possessing a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime.
Johnson also asserts that the district court erred by
denying his motion for a new trial following the admission of
testimony regarding his prior conviction for armed robbery. “We
review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a
motion for a new trial.” United States v. Perry, 335 F.3d 316,
320 (4th Cir. 2003). After reviewing the record, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Johnson’s motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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