UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4486
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM RAY WOOTEN,
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. (3:09-cr-00013-RJC-1)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 7, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Ann L. Hester, Cecilia
Oseguera, Assistant Federal Defenders, Charlotte, North
Carolina, Fredilyn Sison, Assistant Federal Defender, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Ray Wooten was found guilty of armed robbery,
and in committing that offense forced an individual to accompany
him without consent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d),
and (e) (2006), using and carrying a firearm during and in
relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(C)(i) (2006), and possession of a firearm and
ammunition by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and
924(e)(1). Wooten now appeals, claiming that the district court
erred in precluding him from impeaching Government witness Mark
Bradley with evidence of Bradley’s two prior convictions, both
of which occurred over twenty years ago.
We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d
300, 309 (4th Cir. 2008). Federal Rule of Evidence 609 allows a
party to impeach a witness with prior felony convictions under
certain circumstances. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1). However,
“[e]vidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if
a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of
the conviction . . . unless the court determines, in the
interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction
. . . substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.”
We have reviewed the record and find that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of
2
Bradley’s prior convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court. 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