United States v. Nishon Rainner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4577
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NISHON QUINTE RAINNER, a/k/a Rodney Oblin Nicolas, a/k/a
Buddy,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-4623
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NISHON QUINTE RAINNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:15-cr-00055-CCB-1; 1:15-cr-00269-CCB-1)
Submitted: June 14, 2016 Decided: June 16, 2016
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Bardos, SCHULMAN, HERSHFIELD & GILDEN, P. A., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Nishon Quinte Rainner
appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for two counts
of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012), and the district
court’s judgment, based on these convictions, revoking his
supervised release in a separate criminal matter and sentencing
him to 18 months’ imprisonment consecutive to the 100-month term
imposed on the substantive charges. Rainner argues that the
district court erred by admitting evidence that the firearms and
ammunition had been stolen and by denying his motion for a
mistrial. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not commit reversible error in its
evidentiary rulings; the admission of evidence that the firearms
were stolen was not an abuse of discretion, United States v.
Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 732 (4th Cir. 2006), nor were the
court’s evidentiary rulings arbitrary or irrational, United
States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. 2011). In addition,
we conclude there was no basis for granting a mistrial. United
States v. Dorlouis, 107 F.3d 248, 257 (4th Cir. 1997). And the
district court’s curative instruction regarding the Government’s
statement during its closing argument was sufficient to erase
any confusion on the part of the jury. Accordingly, we affirm
3
the district court’s judgments. * We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* Rainner raises no challenges on appeal to the revocation
of his supervised release or to his sentence.
4