UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4948
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES ANDRE PHILLIP HUNT,
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-03-185)
Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 1, 2004
Before WIDENER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anne R. Littlejohn, LAW OFFICE OF ANNE R. LITTLEJOHN, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Andre Phillip Hunt appeals his conviction on a jury
verdict on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000).
Specifically, he contends the district court abused its discretion
by allowing the introduction and repeated use at trial of evidence
of his participation in armed robbery, which he asserts was
extremely prejudicial.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, relevant evidence
"may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice." We review the lower court's
application of this balancing test with the broad deference that
the abuse of discretion standard requires, see, e.g., United States
v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 603 (4th Cir. 1998), and find the district
court did not abuse its discretion in this case. The evidence of
Hunt’s earlier participation in the armed robbery, in which he
brandished and fired the firearm later found in the vehicle he was
driving, had substantial probative value and was directly relevant
to whether Hunt was a felon in possession of a firearm. This is
particularly so given that another passenger had been in the
vehicle with Hunt between the time of the armed robbery and the
time police discovered the firearm when they stopped the vehicle.
There was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
determination that the probative value of the disputed evidence was
- 2 -
not “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
Fed. R. Evid. 403. While the robbery evidence was potentially
prejudicial to Hunt, it was not unfairly prejudicial and its
probative value exceeded any prejudice Hunt may have suffered,
given that Hunt’s earlier use of the firearm was inexorably
intertwined with the proof that the firearm found in the vehicle
actually was possessed by Hunt. See United States v. Myers, 280
F.3d 407, 413-14 (4th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Chin,
83 F.3d 83, 88 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding murder evidence admissible
under Rules 403, 404(b) where it concerns “acts intrinsic to the
crime charged”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of
Hunt’s motion in limine, and further affirm Hunt’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 aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -