The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-4263•United States of America v. Claude Ray
01-4263Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 26, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4263
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLAUDE RAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CR-00-172)
Submitted: October 24, 2001 Decided: November 26, 2001
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William P. Robinson, Jr., ROBINSON, NEELEY & ANDERSON, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attor-
ney, James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney,
Thomas Scott Liverman, Third Year Law Student, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Claude Ray appeals his jury convictions for possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 922(g)(1) (West 2000) and possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 841(a)(1) (West 1999). The
court sentenced Ray to eighty-eight months’ imprisonment on the
firearm conviction and sixty months’ imprisonment on the drug con-
viction. On appeal, Ray attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the jury’s verdict. We have reviewed the record, and
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government,
we find sufficient evidence to support Ray’s convictions. See
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
Accordingly, we affirm Ray’s convictions and sentences. 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.