US v. Stephen Miller, No. 09-4530 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4530 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEPHEN RAY MILLER, Defendant - Appellant.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 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 24, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Stephen Ray Miller and Christopher Ray Hayes of robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006), and of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 § 924(c) (2006). the robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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 a January Walgreens 23, 2008, conspirators pharmacy. from Video conspirators managers, and pharmacy Hayes, the of Miller, prior pharmacists, a and robbery surveillance several controlled and one robbed of and the of others that the Government failed to prove two the co- store confirmed Hayes and Miller used guns during the robberies. contend co- Walgreens the including On two another testimony eyewitnesses, cashier, substances. that Appellants that the guns carried by them during the robberies were capable of expelling a projectile by definition of Appellants an explosive firearm assert that in action, 18 absent as U.S.C. such set § 921(a)(3) proof, the insufficient to support their firearm convictions. 3 forth in the (2006). evidence was A conviction under § 924(c) can be sustained solely on the strength firearms, and of no testimony expert of lay witnesses testimony is unfamiliar required. See States v. Jones, 907 F.2d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 1990). with United In this case, numerous witnesses testified that Miller and Hayes used guns during the robberies, surveillance videos. and guns are visible in the 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. See United States v. Redd, 161 F.3d 793, 797 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, convictions. we affirm Miller s and Hayes 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
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.
