UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4929
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY FEURY HAMMOND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-32-FO)
Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpening,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rodney F. Hammond appeals his conviction and forty-one month
sentence, after a jury trial, for breaking and entering into the
Oak Island, North Carolina post office, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 2115 (West Supp. 2000), and theft of government property,
specifically, cash and money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §
641 (West 2000).
On appeal, Hammond argues that, under Fed. R. Evid. 403, the
district court erred in admitting testimony from his state
probation officer, notwithstanding the district court’s limiting
instructions. We review the district court’s determination on the
admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States
v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1469 (4th Cir. 1995). Hammond’s claim is
meritless. Fed. R. Evid. 403; United States v. Hines, 943 F.2d
348, 353-54 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Silva, 745 F.2d 840,
844 (4th Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we affirm Hammond’s conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2