US v. Stephen Miller

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4530 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEPHEN RAY MILLER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-4532 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER RYAN HAYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00855-CMC-1) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina; Joshua S. Kendrick, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Winston D. Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Stephen Ray Miller and Christopher Ray Hayes of robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006), and of using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during the commission of the robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006). On appeal, Miller and Hayes argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for acquittal on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence, contending that the Government must prove that the firearms used were capable of expelling projectiles by explosive actions. We affirm. On December 23, 2007, Hayes and two co-conspirators robbed January a Walgreens 23, 2008, from Video and pharmacy Hayes, the of controlled and one substances. of the two On co- Miller, robbery and conspirators pharmacy. conspirators managers, prior robbed testimony another of the Walgreens two co- surveillance several a eyewitnesses, cashier, and including others the store that pharmacists, confirmed Hayes and Miller used guns during the robberies. contend that the Government failed to prove that Appellants the guns carried by them during the robberies were capable of expelling a projectile definition Appellants by of an explosive in action, 18 as set forth in the firearm that U.S.C. such § 921(a)(3) the (2006). was assert absent proof, evidence insufficient to support their firearm convictions. 3 A conviction under § 924(c) can be sustained solely on the strength and of no testimony expert of lay witnesses is unfamiliar See with firearms, testimony required. United In this States v. Jones, 907 F.2d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 1990). case, numerous witnesses testified that Miller and Hayes used guns during the robberies, and guns are visible in the surveillance videos. Thus, substantial evidence supports the convictions for use of a firearm during the commission of the robberies, and the district court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal. 797 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, convictions. we affirm Miller's and Hayes' See United States v. Redd, 161 F.3d 793, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4