UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4875
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARY JOSEPHINE DANIEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-3)
Submitted: May 7, 2004 Decided: May 24, 2004
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas G. Dyer, DYER LAW OFFICES, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Zelda E.
Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mary Josephine Daniel appeals her conviction by a jury of
one count of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of
a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
Daniel was indicted after her neighbors and erstwhile
friends, Julie Herrick and Michael Richmond, reported her
possession of a firearm to authorities, and a firearm was found in
her residence during an ensuing search. On appeal, Daniel argues
that the district court erred in denying her motions in limine and
allowing the evidence of her drug use and the motivations of
Herrick and Richmond to be admitted at trial. We review a district
court’s determination of the admissibility of evidence for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d 365, 371 (4th
Cir. 1997). Our review convinces us that the district court
properly determined that the evidence in question was relevant.
United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83, 86 (4th Cir. 1980).
Moreover, the district court’s evaluation of the evidence under
Fed. R. Evid. 403 was not “an arbitrary or irrational exercise of
discretion.” United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 321 (4th Cir.
1995).
We therefore affirm Daniel’s conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -