2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-17-2014 

# U S A v . O m a r F ol k

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 13-4078

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . Om a r F o l k " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 988. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/988NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 4078

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. OMAR SIERRE FOLK, Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Di strict of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1

- 11

- cr - 00292

- 001) District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

Submitted under Third Cir cuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 3, 2014 Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : September 17, 2014 )

O P I N I O N

ROTH , Circuit Judge : Omar Folk was found guilty of distribution and possessio n with intent to distribute cocaine , use of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and being a felon in possession of a firearm

. At trial, Melanie Schill, a woman with whom Folk used to live2 and with whom he had a child , testified that Folk possess ed and man ufactured drugs and used a gun during a domestic dispute

. Folk now appeals his denial of a motion for a mis trial and his subsequent denial of a motion for a new trial on the grounds that Schill’s testimony was unduly prejudicial

. Finding no er ror with the District Court’s decision to admit the testimony, we will affirm.
I . Backg r ound On July 11, 2012 , a grand jury returned a four

- count indictment against Folk

. Count one charged Folk with distribution of 280 grams or more of cocaine base for the entire period of the indictment from August 2009 through September 1, 2011, in violati on of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

. Count s two through four charged Folk with being a felon in possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g), 924(c )

. At trial, the prosecution presented physical evidence from Folk’s arrest , evidence obtained during a search of Folk’s apartment, and testimony from two cooperating individuals to whom Folk had sold crack and powder cocaine f rom 2009 through 2011

. In addition , Schill testified that , while living with Folk in 2010 , she had arrived home and seen what she believed to be crack cocaine on a napkin and proceeded to argue with him about it

. The argument escalated, and Schill testif ied that Folk grabbed a gun during the argument, held their daughter, and pointed the gun at Schill while threatening to kill her

. Folk’s counsel objected throughout Schill’s testimony. At the end of the testimony, Folk’s counsel requested a mistrial on the grounds that the testimony was unduly prejudicial and should not have been admitted pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules3 of Evidence. The request was denied , and t he jury found Folk guilty on all four counts

. Folk then filed a motion for a new t rial alleging that Schill’s testimony was incurably prejudicial testimony

. T he D istrict C ourt denied Folk’s motion in a written opinion

. Folk appealed

. II . Standard of Review We review denial of a motion for a mistrial b ased on allegedly prejudicial testimony for abuse of discretion

. United States v

. Riley , 621 F.3d 312, 335

– 36 ( 3d Cir

. 2010) (citing United States v

. Lore , 430 F.3d 190, 207 (3d Cir

. 2010) ).
III . Discussion 1
The District C ourt did not abuse its discretion in admitting Schill’s tes timony b ecause it was relevant to the g overnment ’s charge that Folk carried and used a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

. See Smith v. United States , 508 U.S. 223, 238 (1993) (defining scope of § 924(c)(1))

. Schill’s testimony established that Folk owned a gun, stored it near a supply of crack cocaine, and used it at least once to threaten Schill into keeping silent about his drug trafficking activities. This evidence went directly to the g overnment ’s case against Folk under § 924(c). See, e.g. , United States v. Sparrow , 371 F.3d 851, 853 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding that the fact that a gun was strategically loca t ed in a compartment containing a cache of marijuana supported a § 924(c) conviction)

. The Distri ct Court similarly did not abuse its discretion in admitting Schill’s testimony over Folk’s objection pursuant to Rule 403. Under that rule, a court may

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.4 exclude relevant evidence “ i f its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Fed

. R

. Evid

. 403

. Rule 403 creates a presumption of admissibility and “does not provide a shield for defendants who engage in outrageous
acts.” United States v

. Cross , 308 F.3d 308, 325 (3d Cir

. 2002)

. Nothing about S c hill’s testimony crea ted a danger of unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed its probative value under Rule 403. The District Court, therefore, did not err in admitting the testimony.
IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the Distri ct Court.