USCA4 Appeal: 21-4692 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4692
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN REVELS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00020-BO-2)
Submitted: April 3, 2023 Decided: April 19, 2023
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: W. Michael Dowling, THE DOWLING FIRM PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4692 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
On September 4, 2016, Jonathan Revels was involved in a dispute at a property in
Red Springs, North Carolina, that ultimately resulted in the fatal shooting of Jason Hunt.
Following the incident, Revels was indicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2018). 1 A jury convicted
Revels of the charge, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Revels argues that the court erred in admitting certain testimony at trial,
miscalculated his Sentencing Guidelines range, failed to rule on disputed facts at
sentencing, and failed to adequately explain the sentence. We affirm Revels’ conviction,
vacate the sentence, and remand for resentencing.
We first address Revels’ contention that the district court should have excluded
testimony, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403, that obliquely referenced the shooting at the Red
Springs property. Under Rule 403, a court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.
“Unfair prejudice speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the
factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense
charged.” United States v. Tillmon, 954 F.3d 628, 643 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). Thus,
under Rule 403, relevant evidence is inadmissible “when there is a genuine risk that the
1
Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)
convictions; the new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory
maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g) offense. See Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The 15-
year statutory maximum does not apply in this case, however, because the defendant’s
offense occurred before the June 25, 2022, amendment of the statute.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4692 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
emotions of a jury will be excited to irrational behavior, and this risk is disproportionate to
the probative value of the offered evidence.” PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co.,
639 F.3d 111, 124 (4th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up).
“We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.” United
States v. Burfoot, 899 F.3d 326, 340 (4th Cir. 2018); see also Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 762 F.3d 339, 349-50 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting we “will not overturn a Rule 403
decision except under the most extraordinary of circumstances, where a trial court’s
discretion has been plainly abused” (cleaned up)). Even if an evidentiary ruling is
erroneous, however, we will not vacate the defendant’s conviction if the error was
harmless. “An error is harmless if we can say with fair assurance, after pondering all that
happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not
substantially swayed by the error.” Burfoot, 899 F.3d at 340 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Here, video footage from a cell phone conclusively established that Revels
possessed two firearms, and Revels stipulated that he knew he was a felon. In light of this
overwhelming evidence of Revels’ guilt on the felon-in-possession charge, we conclude
that the district court’s allowance of testimony briefly mentioning the shooting at Red
Springs, even if erroneous, was harmless. See United States v. Ball, 18 F.4th 445, 453
(4th Cir. 2021) (noting elements of § 922(g) offense). Accordingly, we affirm Revels’
conviction.
With respect to the sentence, Revels argues, in part, that the district court’s
application of the Guidelines was erroneous in light of the facts of his offense. In response,
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4692 Doc: 41 Filed: 04/19/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
the Government concedes that it mistakenly misrepresented a material fact at the
sentencing hearing. Given this admission, we conclude that remand for resentencing is
warranted to ensure that the court does not rely on erroneous factual representations in
selecting Revels’ sentence. See United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111-13
(4th Cir. 2015) (noting court errs by “selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous
facts”). 2 Because the Government’s factual misrepresentation independently requires
resentencing, we do not address at this juncture Revels’ additional challenges to the
original sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm Revels’ conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for
resentencing. 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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
2
Revels suggests that the Government’s misrepresentation of a material fact also
warrants further investigation. We conclude that remand for resentencing will cure any
potential prejudice. See United States v. Dyess, 478 F.3d 224, 236 (4th Cir. 2007)
(discussing proper remedy for prosecutorial misconduct).
4