UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4154
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY LAMAR LOGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-200)
Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 25, 2003
Before WIDENER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Following a jury trial, Gregory Lamar Logan was convicted of
distribution of fifty grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2000). The district court sentenced
Logan to 165 months’ imprisonment. The sole issue Logan raises on
appeal is whether the trial court erred when it allowed testimony
concerning his prior drug trafficking activities under Federal Rule
of Evidence 404(b).
We review the district court’s admission of evidence under
Rule 404(b) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Queen, 132
F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir. 1997). In order to be admissible: “(1)
the prior-act evidence must be relevant to an issue other than
character, such as intent; (2) it must be necessary to prove an
element of the crime charged; (3) it must be reliable; and (4) as
required by Federal Rule of Evidence 403, its probative value must
not be ‘substantially outweighed’ by its prejudicial nature.” Id.
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and conclude
the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Travis
Knight’s testimony about prior drug-related conversations between
Logan and him. We also find no abuse of discretion in the admission
of Joe White’s testimony that he had engaged in occasional drug
deals with Logan over a six-month period up to February 2002. The
evidence of Logan’s similar, prior drug-related activities was
admissible in order to prove Logan’s motive and intent.
2
Accordingly, we affirm Logan’s conviction. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3