UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-5036
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON ELEAZOR JACKSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00007-H-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2013 Decided: October 9, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Eleazor Jackson appeals his conviction for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Jackson contends that the district
court erred in admitting into evidence the audio portion of a
recording of his post-arrest interview with police. Jackson’s
sole claim is that the audio had no probative value and was
unduly prejudicial. We affirm.
Federal Rule of Evidence 103 requires that, to
preserve for appellate review an objection to evidence, the
objection must be specific, timely, and of record. See United
States v. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d 742, 751 (4th Cir. 2011)
(“An objection to the admission of evidence must be both
specific and timely.”); United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768,
783 (4th Cir. 1983) (holding party must “object with that
reasonable degree of specificity which would have adequately
apprised the trial court of the true basis for his objection and
would have clearly stated the specific ground now asserted on
appeal”) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration
omitted). We find that Jackson failed to object to the evidence
on the specific ground that he now asserts on appeal.
We review unpreserved evidentiary objections for plain
error. See Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d at 751. Under this
standard of review, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b)
2
“authorizes an appeals court to correct a forfeited error only
if (1) there is an error, (2) the error is plain, and (3) the
error affects substantial rights.” Henderson v. United States,
133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013) (internal quotation marks and
brackets omitted). Because Rule 52(b) is permissive, we should
correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at
1127 (internal quotations marks and brackets omitted).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the
district court did not commit plain error in admitting the
recording of Jackson’s interview. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3