Case ID: f-appx_11/html/0207-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane COWLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4612.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 6, 2001.
    Decided April 30, 2001.
    Michael R. Cline, Michael R. Cline Law Offices, Charleston, WV, for appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Bryant J. Spann, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, WV, for appellee.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Shane Cowley appeals his conviction for possession of a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 9220), 924(a)(2) (West Supp.2000), attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 2000) and 18 U.S.C.A § 2 (West Supp. 2000), use of a firearm in connection with a federal drug-trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1), (2) (West Supp. 2000), and witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1512(b)(1), (2) (West Supp.2000). We affirm.

Cowley contends the district court erred by excluding the tape recorded statements of an unavailable declarant as inadmissible hearsay. The admission or exclusion of evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge; his decision will not be reversed without a showing that he abused his discretion. United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 926 (4th Cir.1997).

We have reviewed the record and briefs and find the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the statements. Accordingly, we affirm Cowley’s conviction. 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.