United States of America v. Vagas Davis, a/k/a Vegas Gabriel Davis

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4811
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VAGAS DAVIS, a/k/a Vegas Gabriel Davis,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00309-HEH-1)
Submitted: May 25, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George A. Townsend, IV, GEORGE A. TOWNSEND, IV, PLLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Vagas Davis was convicted of
possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006), and the district court sentenced him to
121 months’ imprisonment. Davis appeals, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion when it admitted his bank
records because the records reflected daily expenses - not
unexplained expenditures - and were too remote in time from the
charged offense. We affirm.
“This Court reviews a district court’s evidentiary
ruling for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Johnson, 617
F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010). A court abuses its discretion if
its decision is based on an error of law or clearly erroneous
factual findings. Id.
We conclude that the district court properly admitted
Davis’s bank records. “It is clear that evidence of unexplained
wealth is relevant in a narcotics prosecution as evidence of
illegal dealings and ill-gotten gains.” United States v.
Grandison, 783 F.2d 1152, 1156 (4th Cir. 1986). Davis’s bank
records show substantial deposits despite the fact that Davis
reported no income. The issue was not unexplained expenditures,
but unexplained wealth. Further, we conclude that the records
are not unduly remote as they reflected a pattern of activity
that continued through the date charged in the indictment.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Moreover, despite Davis’s assertion to the contrary, Davis
plainly possessed the drugs for distribution.
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

-- 3 of 3 --