UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4580
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL CORTEZ FORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00208)
Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman Butler, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen
C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Cortez Ford appeals his conviction and sentence
for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced Ford to
sixty months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and
ordered payment of a $100 statutory assessment. Ford has appealed,
challenging the district court’s admission of evidence and
asserting that his federal sentence should run concurrently to his
state sentence because his judgment order did not specify whether
it was to run concurrently or consecutively. We affirm Ford’s
conviction and sentence.
We review the district court’s admission of evidence
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 404(b) for abuse of discretion, and
will not overturn the court’s decision to admit such evidence
unless it was “arbitrary or irrational.” See United States v.
Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir. 1997). Ford challenges the
district court’s decision to allow law enforcement witnesses to
testify concerning their investigation of, and Ford’s statements
relative to, a prior shoot-out on the ground that the testimony was
introduced simply to demonstrate Ford’s criminal propensities or
bad character. Contrary to Ford’s assertions, we find no abuse of
the district court’s discretion. The evidence was directly
probative of Ford’s motive, intent, and absence of mistake with
regard to possessing a firearm four days later, the evidence was
- 2 -
limited insofar as Ford was identified only as a “person in
interest,” with no mention of the fact that arrest warrants had
been issued for him relative to that incident, the district court
instructed the jury that it was to limit its consideration of the
challenged evidence to the allowable issues pursuant to Rule
404(b), the facts presented were not in dispute, and the
prejudicial effect of the testimony did not outweigh its probative
value. Id. at 994-95, 997.
We likewise reject Ford’s contention that because the
district court’s judgment order is silent as to the relationship
between his federal sentence on the instant offense and a state
sentence, his federal sentence should run concurrently with his
state sentence. Pursuant to the provisions of both 18 U.S.C.
§ 3584(a) (2000), and U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual,
§ 5G1.3(a) (2004), Ford’s federal sentence on the instant offense
and his previously-imposed but undischarged state court sentence on
a separate offense are considered multiple terms of imprisonment
imposed at different times that are to run consecutively.
Accordingly, we affirm Ford’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 -