United States v. Boone

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Boone

71 F. App'x 227

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 7, 2003

Docket02-4857

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 F. App'x 227 (United States v. Boone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Boone, 71 F. App'x 227 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Gary Dean Boone appeals his convictions and sentence for one count of being a felon transporting a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000) and one count of maliciously damaging and destroying by means of explosive a vehicle used in interstate commerce in which a death resulted in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (2000). Boone’s counsel contends the district court made two evidentiary errors. Specifically, counsel claims the district court erred by (1) admitting evidence of his “swinger” lifestyle, and (2) admitting statements made by the murder victim. Boone has filed a motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, which we grant.

A district court’s rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bostian, 59 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir.1995). We will find an abuse of discretion only if the district court’s evidentiary ruling was arbitrary or irrational. United States v. Achiekwelu, 112 F.3d 747, 753 (4th Cir.1997). Evidentiary rulings are also subject to review for harmless error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, and will be found harmless if *229 the reviewing court can conclude “without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.” United States v. Nyman, 649 F.2d 208, 211-12 (4th Cir. 1980) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)).

With regard to evidence of Boone’s lifestyle, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion. With regard to the decision to admit the victim’s statements, we find any error harmless. Given the substantial evidence supporting the conviction for bombing, we find the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.

While we grant Boone’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, we find the issues raised in the brief are without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence. We grant Boone’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. We deny his motion for a hearing en banc. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Gary Dean Boone appeals his convictions and sentence for one count of being a felon transporting a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000) and one count of maliciously damaging and destroying by means of explosive a vehicle used in interstate commerce in which a death resulted in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (2000). Boone’s counsel contends the district court made two evidentiary errors. Specifically, counsel claims the district court erred by (1) admitting evidence of his “swinger” lifestyle, and (2) admitting statements made by the murder victim. Boone has filed a motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, which we grant.

A district court’s rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bostian, 59 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir.1995). We will find an abuse of discretion only if the district court’s evidentiary ruling was arbitrary or irrational. United States v. Achiekwelu, 112 F.3d 747, 753 (4th Cir.1997). Evidentiary rulings are also subject to review for harmless error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, and will be found harmless if *229 the reviewing court can conclude “without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.” United States v. Nyman, 649 F.2d 208, 211-12 (4th Cir. 1980) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)).

With regard to evidence of Boone’s lifestyle, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion. With regard to the decision to admit the victim’s statements, we find any error harmless. Given the substantial evidence supporting the conviction for bombing, we find the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.

While we grant Boone’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, we find the issues raised in the brief are without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence. We grant Boone’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. We deny his motion for a hearing en banc. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 F. App'x 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-boone-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack