United States v. Marc Williams
This text of United States v. Marc Williams (United States v. Marc Williams) 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.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4586 Doc: 42 Filed: 01/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARC ALLEN WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cr-00242-LO-1)
Submitted: November 29, 2022 Decided: January 31, 2023
Before KING, DIAZ, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: John L. Machado, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MACHADO, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Katherine E. Rumbaugh, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4586 Doc: 42 Filed: 01/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Marc Allen Williams was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm after being
convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Williams to 42 months of imprisonment, to be
followed by 3 years of supervised release. Williams now challenges two of the district
court’s evidentiary rulings: its exclusion of portions of an audio recording with prior
statements of a government witness, and its admission of testimony from that same witness
about Williams’ previous arrest and guilty plea for possessing a different firearm.
Because Williams made the same objections before the district court and has thus
preserved them, we review the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and do not disturb
even an erroneous ruling that was harmless. See United States v. Walker, 32 F.4th 377, 394
(4th Cir. 2022). We have reviewed the record and conclude any error was harmless. 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Marc Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marc-williams-ca4-2023.