US v. Russell Miller, No. 13-4621 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4621 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RUSSELL WAYNE MILLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00016-RJC-1) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henderson Hill, Executive Director, Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, William M. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Russell Wayne Miller appeals from his conviction by a jury for possession of a firearm in furtherance trafficking under 18 U.S.C. ยง 924(c) (2012). * that the evidence at trial was insufficient of drug Miller asserts to support the jury s verdict regarding the in furtherance element of the crime. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. We will decline to overturn a jury verdict if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 387 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013). In order to convict Miller, the jury was required to determine that he possessed a firearm in furtherance of his offense of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. We held in United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002), that whether or not a firearm is used in furtherance of a crime is ultimately a factual question entrusted to the fact-finder. We noted in Lomax several factors that a jury might consider in deciding whether there was a connection between the possession of a firearm and a drug trafficking crime, including inter alia * Miller was also convicted of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. However, he does not challenge this conviction on appeal. 2 the accessibility of the firearm, the type of weapon, whether the weapon is stolen, whether the gun is loaded, proximity to drugs or drug profits, and which the gun is found. the time and circumstances under Id. (noting specifically that firearms may be used in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime when they are used for protection of drugs, drug profits, turf, or self). In sufficient planned firearms of evidence conviction. he light these was factors adduced at and the trial entire to record, sustain the Miller admitted that he was growing marijuana that to (which sell were and that easily he possessed accessible in in his his home two bedroom) and marijuana (in a room across the hall from his bedroom). Both weapons were loaded when they were found, and Miller admitted he purchased and possessed the firearms for protection. Specifically, he obtained the firearms after two prior robberies in his residence by people who were familiar with his prior drug dealing. While Miller began growing marijuana after he had already obtained the firearms, the jury could certainly have concluded that Miller s continued possession stemmed at least in part from a perception that his home was an attractive target for robbers due to the presence of marijuana-growing equipment and marijuana plants. We find unconvincing Miller s argument that a rational jury could determine only that the above evidence showed that he 3 possessed both guns and marijuana in the same house. While Miller contends that the guns were purchased for his personal protection and, thus, unrelated to his marijuana offense, the jury was free to reject this theory of the case. Thus, we decline to overturn the jury on this quintessentially factual question. Id. at 706. We conclude that the conviction rested on sufficient evidentiary support. Accordingly, dispense with contentions are oral we affirm argument adequately Miller s because presented in the the conviction. facts We and legal materials before this 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.
