UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4189
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARQUES ODELL LONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00145-WO-1)
Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 23, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Kathleen Gleason, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United
States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Marques Odell Long of
possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841 (2012); possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) (2012); and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2012). The district
court sentenced Long to a total of 324 months in prison. Long
timely appeals, and we affirm.
On appeal, Long alleges that the district court erred
by excluding portions of his testimony as inadmissible hearsay.
We review the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion,
and “will only overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary
and irrational.” United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Hearsay is a
statement that the declarant does not make while testifying at
the current trial and which is offered “to prove the truth of
the matter asserted in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
Hearsay is generally inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 802.
Long contends that the disputed testimony was not offered
for the truth of the matter asserted; rather, he asserts that
the statements provided an explanation for his flight from
police. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court’s exclusion of the statements was neither
2
arbitrary nor irrational. Moreover, any error was harmless in
light of the evidence against Long and the fact that his
admitted testimony conveyed the information he sought to present
to the jury through the excluded statements—that Long was
unaware of the gun until a phone conversation with his cousin,
and he fled because he was afraid.
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3