United States v. Nishon Rainner

654 F. App'x 143
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 16, 2016
Docket15-4577, 15-4623
StatusUnpublished

This text of 654 F. App'x 143 (United States v. Nishon Rainner) 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. Nishon Rainner, 654 F. App'x 143 (4th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Nishon Quinte Rainner appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for two counts of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and the district court’s judgment, based on these convictions, revoking his supervised release in a separate criminal matter and sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment consecutive to the 100-month term imposed on the substantive charges. Rainner argues that the district court erred by admitting evidence that the firearms and ammunition had been stolen and by denying his motion for a mistrial. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings; the admission of evidence that the firearms were stolen was not an abuse of discretion, United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 732 (4th Cir. 2006), nor were the court’s evidentiary rulings arbitraiy or irrational, United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. 2011). In addition, we conclude there was no basis for granting a mistrial. United States v. Dorlouis, 107 F.3d 248, 257 (4th Cir. 1997). And the district court’s curative instruction regarding the Government’s statement during its closing argument was sufficient to erase any confusion on the part of the jury. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma *144 terials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

*

Rainner raises no challenges on appeal to the revocation of his supervised release or to his sentenoe.

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

Related

United States v. Cole
631 F.3d 146 (Fourth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Dorlouis
107 F.3d 248 (Fourth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
654 F. App'x 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-nishon-rainner-ca4-2016.