United States v. Marlowe ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 98-4867
LINDA JEAN WILLIAMS MARLOWE,
Defendant-Appellant.
NORML FOUNDATION,
Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby.
Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.
(CR-98-87)
Submitted: March 31, 2000
Decided: April 20, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Brent Conner, BRENT CONNER LAW FIRM, Hendersonville,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States
Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee. Joseph A. Bondy, New York, New York, for
Amicus Curiae.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Linda Jean Williams Marlowe appeals the judgment convicting her
of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and import mari-
juana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to
import marijuana, and importing marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 846, 952, 963 (West 1999). On appeal, she argues
that the district court erred by denying her motion under Fed. R.
Crim. P. 17(b) for a subpoena of Dr. Eaton, her treating physician,
and by denying her the opportunity to present a medical necessity
defense. Her remaining claim of error is that the court erred in allow-
ing the Government to cross-examine her regarding why she did not
submit medical evidence to support her claim of allergies to prescrip-
tion medication. Finding no error, we affirm.
We agree with the district court that Dr. Eaton's testimony regard-
ing marijuana and a medical necessity defense could not go to dis-
proving the essential elements of the offenses charged. We therefore
affirm the court's orders denying Marlowe's motion under Fed. R.
Crim. P. 17(b) and granting the Government's motion in limine on the
reasoning of the district court. See J.A. 21-22, 41. We also find that
the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the Government to
cross-examine Marlowe regarding the existence of medical records to
support her testimony regarding her medical condition. See Alford v.
United States, 282 U.S. 687, 694 (1931); United States v. Gravely,
840 F.2d 1156, 1163 (4th Cir. 1988).
We therefore affirm the judgment. 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
2