United States v. Gross ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4187
LINWOOD ANDREW GROSS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(CR-99-94)
Submitted: September 21, 2000
Decided: October 2, 2000
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Beth Farber, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Bat-
taglia, United States Attorney, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Linwood Andrew Gross, Jr. was convicted of possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). He contends that the district court erred in denying his
request for a mistrial. We review this claim for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Guay, 108 F.3d 545, 552 (4th Cir. 1997).
Gross moved for a mistrial after the prosecutor said during summa-
tion that a key witness "came here and . . . told you the truth." This
statement served as a caption for a list of factors suggesting the wit-
ness was credible. The statement was not improper, as it neither
expressed the prosecutor's personal belief nor implied that the prose-
cutor had information not available to the jury that supported the
Government's case. See United States v. Sanchez , 118 F.3d 192, 198
(4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
2