Opinion
21-4586
01-31-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARC ALLEN WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.
ON BRIEF: John L. Machado, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MACHADO, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Katherine E. Rumbaugh, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 29, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O'Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cr-00242-LO-1)
ON BRIEF: John L. Machado, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MACHADO, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Katherine E. Rumbaugh, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, DIAZ, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marc Allen Williams was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm after being convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Williams to 42 months of imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. Williams now challenges two of the district court's evidentiary rulings: its exclusion of portions of an audio recording with prior statements of a government witness, and its admission of testimony from that same witness about Williams' previous arrest and guilty plea for possessing a different firearm.
Because Williams made the same objections before the district court and has thus preserved them, we review the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and do not disturb even an erroneous ruling that was harmless. See United States v. Walker, 32 F.4th 377, 394 (4th Cir. 2022). We have reviewed the record and conclude any error was harmless. 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