US v. Harris, No. 06-4848 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4848 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEON R. HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). The district court sentenced Harris to five months imprisonment. On appeal, to Harris demonstrate argues Harris that knowingly the evidence possessed is heroin possessed heroin with intent to distribute. insufficient and knowingly 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 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.