UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4410
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS WARRICK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:12-cr-00189-MSD-TEM-1)
Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 6, 2015
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S.
Platt, Appellate Attorney, Keith L. Kimball, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J.
Boente, United States Attorney, Randy C. Stoker, Elizabeth M.
Yusi, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Warrick was convicted by a jury of six counts
of receiving child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (2012),
and sentenced to a within-Guidelines sentence of 180 months’
imprisonment, followed by supervised release for life. Warrick
appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion
by allowing the Government to play short clips from seven videos
found on a computer in Warrick’s home, despite Warrick’s offer
to stipulate that the videos met the definition of child
pornography.
A district court should exclude relevant evidence when
“its probative value is ‘substantially outweighed’ by the
potential for undue prejudice, confusion, delay or redundancy.”
United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 994 (4th Cir. 1997)
(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 403). “Prejudice, as used in Rule 403,
refers to evidence that has an ‘undue tendency to suggest
decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily,
an emotional one.’” Id. (citations omitted). We apply “a
highly deferential standard of review of such an issue, and a
trial court’s decision to admit evidence over a Rule 403
objection will not be overturned except under the most
extraordinary circumstances, where that discretion has been
plainly abused.” United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 132
2
(4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 157 (2014).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting the video clips at issue. We therefore affirm
Warrick’s conviction. 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