US v. William Rice
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999620935-2]. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00232-CCE-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999658115]. [15-4230]
Appeal: 15-4230
Doc: 33
Filed: 09/11/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4230
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM DELANO RICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00232-CCE-1)
Submitted:
September 9, 2015
Decided:
September 11, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Clark Fisher, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4230
Doc: 33
Filed: 09/11/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
William Delano Rice appeals the criminal judgment entered
against him after a jury convicted him of one count each of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012); possession with intent
to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(D) (2012); and possession of ammunition by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012).
On
appeal,
Rice
asserts
that
the
insufficient to establish that:
Government’s
evidence
was
(1) he possessed the firearm
and ammunition for which he was convicted; and (2) the marijuana
he possessed was for anything other than personal use.
also
filed
a
motion
to
file
a
pro
se
supplemental
Rice has
brief. *
Finding no error, we affirm.
“We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
de novo[.]”
2015).
United States v. Bran, 776 F.3d 276, 279 (4th Cir.
If, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government, we find there is substantial evidence to support
*
Because Rice is represented by counsel who has filed a
merits brief, he is not entitled to file a pro se supplemental
brief.
Accordingly, we deny his motion.
See United States v.
Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011) (denying
motion to file pro se supplemental brief because the defendant
was represented by counsel).
2
Appeal: 15-4230
Doc: 33
Filed: 09/11/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
the conviction, we will affirm the jury’s verdict.
States
v.
Hager,
721
F.3d
167,
179
(4th
See United
Cir.
2013).
“Substantial evidence is such evidence that a reasonable finder
of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a
conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the
record and have considered Rice’s arguments and conclude that,
viewing
the
evidence
in
the
light
most
favorable
to
the
Government, there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s
convictions on all counts.
Accordingly,
pro
se
supplemental brief and affirm the district court’s judgment.
We
dispense
with
contentions
are
we
oral
deny
Rice’s
argument
adequately
motion
because
presented
in
to
the
the
file
facts
a
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
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?