United States v. Bobbitt , 159 F. App'x 514 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4421
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEVIN DALE BOBBITT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CR-04-51-BO)
Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 27, 2005
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Sherri Royall
Alspaugh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney,
Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Dale Bobbitt was convicted of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 120 months
imprisonment. Bobbitt appeals, challenging the district court’s
ruling refusing to allow Bobbitt and his wife to testify about a
statement made to them by Allen Willis concerning the firearm. We
affirm the district court’s ruling and therefore affirm Bobbitt’s
conviction.
Prior to his arrest, Bobbitt was seen wearing a certain
jacket. When arrested, Bobbitt had just exited a vehicle and was
not wearing a jacket. However, a jacket matching the description
of the one he wore earlier was on the seat Bobbitt vacated when he
exited the vehicle. A firearm was found in a pocket of that
jacket.
During his trial on the charge of unlawful possession of
the firearm, Bobbitt sought to introduce a statement made to him
and his wife by Allen Willis, Bobbitt’s close friend. Bobbitt and
his wife sought to testify that Willis said that the police found
his gun in his jacket, presumably claiming ownership of the firearm
with which Bobbitt was charged. The district court determined that
this was inadmissible hearsay and disallowed the testimony. We
have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the
district court's order. We conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the proffered evidence.
- 2 -
See United States v. Lowe, 65 F.3d 1137, 1145 (4th Cir. 1995);
United States v. Bumpass, 60 F.3d 1099, 1102 (4th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, we affirm Bobbitt’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 -