United States v. Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4967
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID MALCOLM JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:05-cr-00042-F-ALL)
Submitted: July 20, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert H. Hale, Jr., HALE & HOPKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PC, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States
Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Malcolm Jones was convicted after a trial of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)(2000). On appeal, Jones claims the district
court erred permitting evidence from an attorney naming his prior
conviction. He also challenges the admission of the judgment of
conviction and claims he offered to stipulate to the prior felony
conviction. He further claims the probative value of the evidence
was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Jones
filed a motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and a
supplemental brief claiming the evidence was insufficient to
establish the prior conviction. Finding no error, we affirm.
The district court’s decision to admit evidence is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Rivera, 412
F.3d 562, 571 (4th Cir. 2005) (addressing admission of evidence
over Fed. R. Evid. 403 objection). Because Jones did not make a
timely objection to testimony naming his prior conviction or to the
admission of the judgment of conviction, we review any error under
the plain error standard. Jones must show: (1) there was error;
(2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial
rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). When
these conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to
notice the error only if the error “seriously affect[s] the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
- 2 -
Id. at 736 (internal quotation marks omitted). Jones has the
burden of showing plain error. United States v. Strickland, 245
F.3d 368, 379-80 (4th Cir. 2001).
We first note Jones did not offer to stipulate to a prior
felony conviction. Thus, the Government was obligated to submit
evidence establishing a prior conviction. We further note Jones’
substantial rights were not affected by the admission of the
challenged evidence. The evidence supporting his conviction was
overwhelming. Jones admitted owning several weapons. He further
admitted living in the barn in which the weapons were found. Thus,
we find no plain error.
We further find the evidence establishing the prior
conviction was sufficient. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942) (stating standard). There was testimony from the
prosecuting attorney establishing the date of the prior conviction.
The Government also entered into evidence a certified copy of the
judgment.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. We
grant Jones’ motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and we deny
his motion styled as petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking
to have his counsel removed. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
- 3 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -