U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1999

United States v. Leonard McCullough

United States v. Leonard McCullough
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 9, 1999

United States v. Leonard McCullough

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

LEONARD SHELTON MCCULLOUGH, JR., a/k/a Lennie Boo, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-96-195)

Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: June 9, 1999

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rion Charles Brady, Archdale, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Leonard Shelton McCullough, Jr., appeals from his conviction by jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base for which he was sentenced to 360 months impris- onment. McCullough’s only claim on appeal is that the government violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) (1994) when it provided cooperating witnesses “things of value” (i.e., lenient sentencing) in exchange for their testimony.

Because McCullough failed to raise this issue in the district court, this court reviews it for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 407 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Every circuit which has addressed McCullough’s claim has rejected it. See United States v. Single- ton, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc); United States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Ware, 161 F.3d 414, 418-25 (6th Cir. 1998) (detailed discussion). Be- cause there was no support for McCullough’s claim, any error by the district court was not plain or obvious. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction. 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.