[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 23, 2008
No. 07-14038 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-20679-CR-ASG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STANFORD GREEN,
a.k.a. Stanford Lundy Green,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 23, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Stanford Green appeals his conviction for making or aiding and abetting a
false statement in connection with acquiring a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(a)(6), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he argues that his conviction should be reversed
because the district court erroneously admitted prejudicial evidence of his prior
purchase of three firearms which occurred about 13 months prior to the crimes at
issue in this case and for which he was not charged. At the very least, Green
argues that a limiting instruction should have been given regarding the evidence of
this uncharged criminal conduct.
We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 946 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, ___
U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1305 (2007) and we find none here. Evidence of the
September 2005 transaction was sufficiently intertwined with the events involved
in this trial that it cannot be said that there was an abuse of discretion in admitting
the evidence. Nor do we find any error in the failure to give a specific limiting
instruction, especially as Green failed to request such a limiting instruction.
AFFIRMED.
2