United States v. Gross

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4187

LINWOOD ANDREW GROSS, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-99-94)

Submitted: September 21, 2000

Decided: October 2, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Beth Farber, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Bat- taglia, United States Attorney, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Linwood Andrew Gross, Jr. was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that the district court erred in denying his request for a mistrial. We review this claim for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Guay, 108 F.3d 545, 552 (4th Cir. 1997).

Gross moved for a mistrial after the prosecutor said during summa- tion that a key witness "came here and . . . told you the truth." This statement served as a caption for a list of factors suggesting the wit- ness was credible. The statement was not improper, as it neither expressed the prosecutor's personal belief nor implied that the prose- cutor had information not available to the jury that supported the Government's case. See United States v. Sanchez , 118 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci- sional process.

AFFIRMED