United States v. Morrow

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4678
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CEDRIC DWAYNE MORROW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
03-81-PJM)
Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 8, 2006
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
R. William Hale, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Barbara S. Skalla, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM
Cedric Dwayne Morrow appeals his conviction for
distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(B) (2000). Finding no error, we affirm.
When Government agents approached Morrow to arrest him,
Morrow fled on foot and dropped a loaded firearm. During his
trial, the district court admitted that gun and ammunition into
evidence. Morrow claims that the district court erred by admitting
the firearm because it had no relevance to the drug trafficking
charges he faced and that its admission prejudiced him by making
him appear more dangerous to the jury. We review a district
court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Ward, 171 F.3d 188, 195 (4th Cir. 1999).
Evidence of gun possession is relevant evidence in a drug
conspiracy trial, even if there is no specific evidence linking the
weapon to the conspiracy. Ward, 171 F.3d at 195. In addition,
“guns are tools of the drug trade and are commonly recognized
articles of narcotics paraphernalia.” Id. (citing United States v.
Ricks, 882 F.2d 885 (4th Cir. 1989)). The district court must
“determine on a case by case basis whether the potential relevance
of the gun evidence is outweighed by unfair prejudice or is barred
by any other rule of evidence.” Ward, 171 F.3d at 195.
While the gun entered into evidence was not part of the
drug transaction specified in the indictment, during that
- 2 -
transaction the confidential informant purchased a different
handgun from one of Morrow’s associates. The evidence that Morrow
possessed a handgun at a later date was clearly relevant because it
demonstrated his continuing access to weapons, the “tools of the
drug trade.” Id. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in finding that the probative value of the gun outweighed any undue
prejudice and admitting this evidence.*
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
*
Moreover, even if admission of the disputed evidence was
erroneous, any resulting error would be harmless in light of the
overwhelming evidence against Morrow. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52; United
States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir. 1997). The
conversation between Morrow and the informant arranging the drug
transaction was tape recorded, and the actual transaction was
captured on both video and audio tape.
- 3 -