UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4329
TYRONE E. FREEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-433-AW)
Submitted: June 27, 2000
Decided: July 11, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Antoini M. Jones, GIBSON, JONES & ASSOCIATES, Riverdale,
Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,
Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone E. Freeman appeals his jury convictions and resulting sen-
tences for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Freeman contends the court erred in admitting evidence under Fed.
R. Evid. 404(b) of prior bad acts. We find no abuse of discretion in
admitting evidence that Freeman had previously fled the police and
abandoned contraband before he was apprehended. See United States
v. Mark, 943 F.2d 444, 447 (4th Cir. 1991). We conclude the evidence
was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show Freeman's motive and
intent. We also conclude its prejudicial effect did not outweigh its
probative value when it was presented in rebuttal to Freeman's
defense. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 404(b); United States v. Bailey, 990
F.2d 119, 122 (4th Cir. 1993).
Freeman next contends the prosecution and the district court
deprived him of a fair trial by engaging in improper questioning of
his main defense witness. We find Freeman's conclusory allegations
of prosecutorial misconduct without merit because he fails to meet
even the threshold requirement of demonstrating that the Govern-
ment's cross-examination was actually improper. See United States v.
Golding, 168 F.3d 700, 702 (4th Cir. 1999). We likewise find the
questions posed by the court were direct questions concerning the wit-
ness' observations on the night in question and did not reflect bias on
the part of the court or result in a denial of due process. See United
States v. Tello, 707 F.2d 85 (4th Cir. 1983).
Freeman next asserts ineffective assistance of trial counsel in fail-
ing to move to suppress and to adequately cross-examine a Govern-
ment witness concerning a "show up" identification at the scene.
Because the materials before us on appeal do not conclusively estab-
2
lish defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we find the
claims are not properly raised on appeal. See United States v. Wil-
liams, 977 F.2d 866, 871 (4th Cir. 1992) (finding claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel more properly raised in motion under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 unless record conclusively establishes ineffective-
ness).
Freeman's final argument is that the Government failed to comply
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 and advise him of statements he allegedly
made at the time of his arrest and that the Government intentionally
misled him prior to trial by indicating no identification procedures
were conducted. We find no plain error as to Freeman's conclusory
allegations of misconduct.
We therefore affirm Freeman's convictions and sentences. We dis-
pense 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
3