United States v. Eric Morrison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5194
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC WILFORD MORRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-DSC-2)
Submitted: July 5, 2011 Decided: July 20, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Maria K. Vento, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Eric Wilford Morrison of one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms
or more of powder cocaine and 50 grams or more of crack cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). He appeals,
contending that the district court erred in denying his motion
to exclude evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
At Morrison’s trial, the Government presented
testimony from a number of witnesses regarding Morrison’s
involvement in selling powder and crack cocaine. The Government
also presented evidence of ion scan results indicating the
presence of cocaine on money that law enforcement seized from
Morrison’s front pants pocket at the time of his arrest.
Morrison challenges the ion scan evidence, contending that the
ion scan method was not reliable.
We review the district court’s evidentiary ruling for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Delfino, 510 F.3d 468,
470 (4th Cir. 2007). Expert testimony is admissible under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it concerns: (1) scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge that (2) will aid the
jury or other trier of fact to understand or resolve a fact at
issue. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579,
592 (1993). The reasoning and methodology underlying an
expert’s proffered opinion must be reliable. See id., at 593-
95. The district court conducted a Daubert hearing, at which
2
the Government’s expert testified on direct and cross
examination regarding the reliability of the ion scan results.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
results into evidence.
Moreover, we agree with the Government that even if
the district court erred by admitting the ion scan evidence, any
error was harmless. See United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625,
637 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining district court’s evidentiary
rulings are subject to harmless error review). The Government
presented substantial evidence of Morrison’s involvement in
selling powder and crack cocaine during the charged conspiracy.
See id. (“Erroneously admitted evidence is harmless if a
reviewing court is able to ‘say, with fair assurance, after
pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous
action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially
swayed by the error.’”) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328
U.S. 750, 765 (1946)).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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