UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4595
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALEX ARTIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (CR-04-11)
Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James S. Ellenson, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alex Artis appeals his convictions for possession with
intent to distribute crack cocaine, possession of a firearm in
relation to and furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, possession
of an unregistered firearm, and possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon. Artis asserts that the district court erred by
permitting admission of a certified copy of Artis’s prior
conviction for possession of a firearm while in possession of
cocaine. Artis contends that admission of this evidence violated
Federal Rule of Evidence 609 and unfairly tainted his trial. After
consideration of the record, we affirm.
The district court actually admitted the evidence under
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b),* which prohibits evidence of prior
conduct proving the character of a person in order to show action
in conformity therein, but permits evidence of prior conduct if it
is (1) relevant, (2) “probative of an essential claim or an element
of the offense,” (3) reliable, and (4) its probative value is not
“substantially outweighed by confusion or unfair prejudice.”
United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 997 (4th Cir. 1997). In
addition, the evidence necessary to prove a defendant’s lack of
credibility is an issue separate from character that satisfies Rule
*
Rule 609 does not address or prevent the introduction of
prior convictions offered to prove the falsity of defendant’s
testimony. United States v. Norton, 26 F.3d 240, 243-44 (1st Cir.
1994).
- 2 -
404(b). United States v. Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 970-71 (4th Cir.
1996). The district court’s decision to admit evidence of prior
bad acts under Rule 404(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Queen, 132 F.3d at 998.
Here, Artis testified that, although he had sold crack
cocaine in the past, he never carried a gun while selling crack
cocaine because he did not need one, and he did not know what an
“eight ball” was. Artis’s prior conviction was inconsistent with
his assertions that he did not need a gun, did not know how crack
cocaine was measured, and had never possessed a gun while selling
crack cocaine. Although Artis argues that his testimony concerned
possession of a firearm during a drug sale while his prior
conviction involved only drug and firearm possession, his testimony
that he did not need to carry a firearm in connection with drug
dealing was clearly inconsistent with his prior conviction for
possession of a firearm in connection with a drug offense.
Applying the principles of Rule 404(b) discussed above, we find
that the district did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm Artis’s convictions. 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 -