United States v. Edwards , 214 F. App'x 327 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JASPER JABARI EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-05-66)
Submitted: January 5, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey B. Welty, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna
Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jasper Edwards was convicted of conspiracy to distribute less
than 50 grams of crack and distribution of 30.6 grams of crack. 21
U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (West 1999). He was sentenced to 240
months imprisonment and urges on appeal that he is entitled to a
new trial on four grounds. We have reviewed the four issues raised
by Edwards and find only one merits discussion.
During trial, the district court excluded evidence proffered
by Edwards regarding his future plans and intentions. Edwards
offered testimony from his father about conversations they had
about his future plans and Edwards’s handwritten notes about
legitimate job opportunities he was interested in pursuing.
Edwards contends this evidence should have been admitted under the
then-existing state of mind exception under Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(3). We hold that even if there were error, any error
was harmless. See United States v. Nyman, 649 F.2d 208, 212 (4th
Cir. 1980) (finding that the test of harmlessness was whether the
Court believed it “highly probable that the error did not affect
the judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we find no reversible error and affirm Edwards’s
sentence. 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