United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kenneth Fitzgerald, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Codell Chavis, Defendant-appellant, 28 F.3d 1211 (4th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 28 F.3d 1211 (4th Cir. 1994) Argued: April 12, 1994. Decided: June 30, 1994

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-92-303-G)

David T. Lambeth, Jr., Wishart, Norris, et al, Burlington, North Carolina, for Appellant Chavis;

Walter T. Johnson,Jr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant Fitzgerald.

Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

June K. Allison, Wishart, Norris, et al, Burlington, North Carolina, for Appellant Chavis.

Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:


Kenneth Fitzgerald and Codell Chavis appeal judgments entered on the verdict of a jury for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1) & (b) (1) (A), 846 (1981). They assign error to the court's denial of their motion for acquittal, to its rulings on the admissibility of evidence, to the instructions, and to the court's denial of their request for a downward departure from the applicable guideline range.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument, we find no error in the judgments. United States v. Fitzgerald, No. 2:92CR303-02 (M.D.N.C. June 10, 1993); United States v. Chavis, No. 2:92CR303-01 (M.D.N.C. June 10, 1993).

AFFIRMED

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.