US v. Harris

Filing 920070411

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4848 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEON R. HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00006-REP) Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Elizabeth C. Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Keon R. Harris of possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 (2000), and possession of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 844 (2000). district court sentenced Harris to five months' imprisonment. appeal, Harris argues that the evidence is insufficient and The On to demonstrate Harris knowingly possessed heroin knowingly possessed heroin with intent to distribute. Our review of the trial transcript convinces us the evidence was sufficient to convict. See United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1925 (2006) (discussing standard of review for denial of motion filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29); United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005) (discussing elements of possession with intent to distribute). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 - 2 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?