23 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 1994), 92-5119, U.S. v. Russell
|Citation:||23 F.3d 404|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robby RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||May 09, 1994|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Submitted: June 17, 1993.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-91-89).
Norwood Bentley, III, Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff & Love, Martinsburg, WV, for appellant.
William A. Kolibash, U.S. Atty., Sam G. Nazzaro, Asst. U.S. Atty., Wheeling, WV, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Robby Russell was convicted of two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West Supp.1992), and one count of carrying a firearm in the commission of a drug offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West Supp.1992). He appeals his conviction. Russell's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), raising two issues but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Russell's counsel raised the issue of whether Russell's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the introduction at trial of a gun, a baggie of drugs, a large amount of cash, ammunition, a pager, and a plastic container containing crack found in a search of Russell's car. Counsel acknowledges in his brief that no objection was made in district court to the admission of this evidence; hence, this claim is not properly before this court for review. See United States v. Maxton, 940 F.2d 103, 105 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 60 U.S.L.W. 3343 (U.S.1991) (it is well settled that appellate courts will not review claims not raised in district court except in exceptional circumstances).
To the extent that Russell makes an argument under the plain error doctrine, his claim is meritless. The police officers had reason to suspect that Russell participated in a random shooting in the parking lot of a bar because the security guard...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP