Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-20-2008
USA v. Cannon
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4229
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Cannon" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1198.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1198
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4229
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HAROLD CANNON
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. Action No. 05-cr-00036-1)
District Judge: Hon. Michael M. Baylson
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 9, 2008
BEFORE: BARRY and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges,
and RESTANI,* Judge
(Opinion Filed: May 20, 2008)
*Hon. Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Harold Cannon was convicted by a jury of possession of ammunition by
a convicted felon and of possession of crack cocaine and marijuana with intent to
distribute. He was sentenced to 137 months of imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. In this
timely appeal, Cannon contends that the District Court erred (1) when it denied his
motion to suppress, (2) when it failed to dismiss the possession of ammunition count, and
(3) when it failed to exclude evidence regarding a firearm found in his possession. We
will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
I.
After the suppression hearing, the District Court concluded that the officers
stopping Cannon’s car and arresting him had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of
criminal activity justifying an investigatory Terry stop. It based this conclusion on the
facts that (1) a confidential informant (“CI”) had informed the FBI that Cannon was
engaged in the business of selling cocaine and had asked the CI to distribute cocaine for
him, (2) the CI, while not shown to have previously supplied information leading to an
arrest, was known to and had met in person with Agent Parks so he could be held
2
accountable for the information supplied, (3) the CI supplied detailed and specific
information which was largely corroborated by police surveillance, including information
indicating that Cannon at the time of his arrest would be driving with cocaine to meet the
CI at an agreed upon location, and (4) the only mistaken information supplied by the CI –
the precise model and color of the car Cannon would be driving – did not impair his
reliability.
We find no error in the District Court’s failure to suppress the drugs found on
Cannon and in plain view in his car at the time of his arrest.
II.
Cannon insists that the charge in Count One of the indictment should have been
dismissed because the ammunition may have been transported in interstate commerce
prior to the enactment of the applicable statute. However, the District Court correctly
found that it was immaterial when the ammunition was transported in interstate
commerce so long as it had been so transported prior to Cannon’s possession of it. It is
undisputed that Cannon’s possession of the previously transported ammunition came after
the enactment of the applicable statute, and there is no retroactivity problem here.
III.
Cannon moved in limine to exclude evidence that Cannon possessed an operable
antique firearm at the time of his arrest . He argued that the admission of such evidence
would violate Fed. R. Evid. 403. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in
3
denying this motion. This evidence was properly admitted because it was highly
probative on the issue of whether Cannon was trafficking in drugs and provided the
context in which he possessed the prohibited ammunition. United States v. Picklesimer,
585 F.2d 1199 (3d Cir. 1978).
IV.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
4