UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4182
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VERNON PAUL MCLEAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-04-322)
Submitted: April 17, 2006 Decided: May 11, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Rhett Eleazer, Chapin, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan
S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Vernon Paul McLean appeals his conviction after a jury
trial of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams
or more of cocaine base and a quantity of powder cocaine, and
possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine
base and a quantity of powder cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). He was sentenced to two concurrent
statutory mandatory terms of life imprisonment.1 Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
McLean contends on appeal that the district court did not
conduct a balancing test under Fed. R. Evid. 403 when it admitted
evidence of prior convictions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 404(b).2
This court has held that an explicit finding on the record of the
probative value of the evidence is not required as a condition
precedent to admissibility. United States v. Rawle, 845 F.2d 1244,
1247 (4th Cir. 1998). Based on our review of the Joint Appendix,
we conclude the court implicitly conducted the required balancing
test.
McLean next argues that even if the court did perform the
Rule 403 balancing test, the court abused its discretion when it
decided the probative value of the evidence outweighed its
1
McLean does not challenge his sentence.
2
McLean does not seek to challenge on appeal the admissibility
of the evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). (Appellant’s Br. at
7).
- 2 -
prejudicial value. A district court’s decision following a Rule
403 inquiry is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be
overturned absent the most extraordinary circumstances. United
States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 603 (4th Cir. 1998). This court has
held that there is no unfair prejudice under Rule 403 when the
extrinsic act is no more sensational or disturbing than the crimes
with which the defendant was charged. United States v. Boyd, 53
F.3d 631, 637 (4th Cir. 1995). After reviewing the record, we find
the admitted evidence was no more sensational or disturbing than
the charged crimes, and the manner of presentation of the evidence
to the jury was neutral and did not appeal to the emotions of the
jurors. See United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1467 (4th Cir.
1995). We note, moreover, that any prejudice was mitigated by the
court’s limiting instructions to the jury. See Weeks v. Angelone,
528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000). Finally, as this was not a close case
factually, we conclude with fair assurance that any error regarding
the admission of McLean’s prior drug sales did not affect the
verdict. See United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 325 (4th Cir.
1995). We find the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm McLean’s conviction. We deny his
motions to file a pro se supplemental brief and an oversized pro se
brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -