United States v. Covington , 420 F. App'x 274 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4408
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARCUS WAYNE COVINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00495-WO-1)
Submitted: March 24, 2011 Decided: March 31, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Donald Cowan, Jr., Heather Howell Wright, ELLIS & WINTERS
LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone,
Jr., Acting United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco,
Assistant United States Attorney, James E. Minogue, Third Year
Law Student, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Wayne Covington was convicted by a jury of
possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2006), possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006), and possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). On
appeal, Covington argues that the district court abused its
discretion by not permitting him to display to the jury the
scars and disfigurement he sustained to his right arm as a
result of gunshot injuries that preceded the charges against
him. We affirm.
We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Blake, 571 F.3d 331, 350
(4th Cir. 2009). A district court abuses its discretion when
its decision to exclude evidence is arbitrary and irrational.
United States v. Weaver, 282 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002).
Relevant evidence is evidence that has “any tendency
to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than
it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. However,
relevant evidence may be excluded when its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid.
2
403; Buckley v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 306, 318 (4th Cir. 2008).
Unfair prejudice occurs when “there is a genuine risk that the
emotions of a jury will be excited to irrational behavior, and
this risk is disproportionate to the probative value of the
offered evidence.” United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 730
(4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and
citation omitted). We review a district court’s decision to
exclude evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 401 “under a
broadly deferential standard, and will not overturn a district
court’s ruling in the absence of the most extraordinary
circumstances in which the court’s discretion has been plainly
abused.” United States v. Hassouneh, 199 F.3d 175, 183 (4th
Cir. 2000).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court’s evidentiary ruling challenged on appeal did not
constitute an abuse of the court’s considerable discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm Covington’s conviction. 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
3