United States v. Christopher Cobb

469 F. App'x 221
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 20, 2012
Docket11-4275
StatusUnpublished

This text of 469 F. App'x 221 (United States v. Christopher Cobb) 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. Christopher Cobb, 469 F. App'x 221 (4th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Stephone Cobb appeals his jury convictions for possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006), and two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Cobb’s sole contention on appeal is that the district court violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by granting the Government’s motion in limine and preventing him from cross-examining one of the arresting police officers about a specific, unrelated incident in an attempt to expose the officer’s alleged racial bias. Finding no error, we affirm.

“We review de novo ... an evidentiary ruling implicating the Confrontation Clause.” United States v. Summers, 666 F.3d 192, 197 (4th Cir.2011). “[T]o prove that the exclusion of ... evidence was unconstitutional, the defendant must show that his evidence went directly to the issue of bias of the witness, or motive of the witness to fabricate.” United States v. Hill, 322 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir.2003). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not violate Cobb’s rights under the Confrontation Clause by granting the Government’s motion in limine.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

Related

United States v. Summers
666 F.3d 192 (Fourth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
469 F. App'x 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-christopher-cobb-ca4-2012.