United States v. Christopher Cobb

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4275
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER STEPHONE COBB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00040-F-1)
Submitted: February 28, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert W. Waddell, THE WADDELL LAW FIRM PLLC, Greenville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Stephone Cobb appeals his jury convictions
for possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006),
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006), and two counts
of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Cobb’s sole
contention on appeal is that the district court violated his
rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by
granting the Government’s motion in limine and preventing him
from cross-examining one of the arresting police officers about
a specific, unrelated incident in an attempt to expose the
officer’s alleged racial bias. Finding no error, we affirm.
“We review de novo . . . an evidentiary ruling
implicating the Confrontation Clause.” United States v.
Summers, 666 F.3d 192, 197 (4th Cir. 2011). “[T]o prove that
the exclusion of . . . evidence was unconstitutional, the
defendant must show that his evidence went directly to the issue
of bias of the witness, or motive of the witness to fabricate.”
United States v. Hill, 322 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2003). Upon
review, we conclude that the district court did not violate
Cobb’s rights under the Confrontation Clause by granting the
Government’s motion in limine.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 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
3