UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff- Appellee,
versus
HERMAN LAMARK HUNTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00224)
Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: October 25, 2007
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Q. Burgess, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID Q. BURGESS, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy E. Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Herman Lamark Hunter was convicted by a jury of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B);
851 (West 1999 & Supp. 2007). Counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming there are no
meritorious issues for review, but offering for the court’s
consideration whether the district court erred in admitting
evidence that a confidential informant purchased drugs at 1529
Duckworth and evidence of Hunter’s prison identification card. In
addition, counsel raises for consideration whether the court erred
in admitting a statement by a non-testifying person encouraging
Hunter to tell police that the drugs were his and whether the court
plainly erred in permitting evidence that Hunter hit his
girlfriend. Hunter was given the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but declined. We have reviewed the record and
find no error. Accordingly, we affirm.
We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Cooper, 482 F.3d 658, 662-63
(4th Cir. 2007). Testimony that a search warrant was acquired
after a confidential informant purchased crack cocaine at Hunter’s
residence was admissible because it was relevant background
information as to why the officers searched the residence. United
- 2 -
States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir. 1985). The probative
value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its
prejudicial effect. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The evidence
supporting the convictions was overwhelming. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Hunter’s
prison identification card. It was stipulated that Hunter was a
convicted felon. Thus, the fact that Hunter was actually an inmate
at one time did not unfairly prejudice his case. Furthermore, the
court instructed the jury on the limited purpose for which the
evidence was to be used. See United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991,
997 (4th Cir. 1997). We further find testimony that a person was
overheard telling Hunter to admit the drugs were his was harmless.
With respect to testimony that Hunter may have hit his
girlfriend, we find due to the weight of the evidence, Hunter’s
substantial rights were not affected. United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993).
We also find there was substantial evidence supporting
the convictions. In addition we find no error at sentencing and
Hunter’s sentence within the advisory guidelines was reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Hunter’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
- 3 -
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client. 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
- 4 -