Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60479/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60479-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene Darrell Dabbs
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60479

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GENE DARRELL DABBS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(2:02-CR-101-1-B)

--------------------

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Gene Darrell Dabbs appeals his conviction

for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g). In addition to the federal charges for possessing

a weapon, Dabbs was charged in state court with aggravated assault

based on the same incident. The state charges were dismissed.

Dabbs argues that the district court erroneously granted the

government's motion in limine to exclude evidence of that

 Case: 03-60479 Document: 0051601188 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2004
2

dismissal, contending that this exclusion violated his rights to

confrontation and denied him a fair trial.

The primary interest secured by the Confrontation Clause of

the Sixth Amendment is the defendant's right to cross-examine his

accusers. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974). "[T]he

Confrontation clause guarantees the defendant 'an opportunity

for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is

effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense

might wish.'" United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106 (5th Cir.

1993)(citation omitted). The district court did not err by

granting the government's motion in limine. See United States v.

Kerley, 643 F.2d 299, 300-01; (5th Cir. 1981) United States v. De

La Rosa, 171 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 1999); see also United States

v. Marrero-Ortiz, 160 F.3d 768, 775 (1st Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-60479 Document: 0051601188 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2004