UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWIN COLON MALDONADO, a/k/a Edwin Maldonado-Cruz, a/k/a 

Pablo Castro,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (7:11-cr-00123-F-2)

Submitted: August 29, 2014 Decided: September 4, 2014

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

R. Clarke Speaks, SPEAKS LAW FIRM, PC, Wilmington, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States 

Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

A federal jury convicted Edwin Colon Maldonado of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012); possession with intent to 

distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2012); 

possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2012); and possession of a firearm in 

relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court sentenced Maldonado

to 123 months of imprisonment, and he now appeals. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appeal, Maldonado argues that the district court 

erred in admitting expert testimony and evidence of his 

possession of images of “patron saints” as evidence of 

connection to drug trafficking. Maldonado contends that the 

probative value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by 

its prejudicial effect. 

A district court should exclude relevant evidence when 

“its probative value is ‘substantially outweighed’ by the 

potential for undue prejudice, confusion, delay or redundancy.” 

United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 994 (4th Cir. 1997) 

(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 403). “Prejudice, as used in Rule 403, 

refers to evidence that has an ‘undue tendency to suggest 

decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, 
3

an emotional one.’” Id. (citations omitted). We apply “a 

highly deferential standard of review of such an issue, and a 

trial court’s decision to admit evidence over a Rule 403 

objection will not be overturned except under the most 

extraordinary circumstances, where that discretion has been 

plainly abused.” United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 132 

(4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 

evidence.

Maldonado also argues that the district court erred in 

excluding evidence that the lead detective in the case, who did 

not testify at trial, had been convicted of obstruction of 

justice. “We review evidentiary rulings of the district court 

for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608, 

633 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs only when “the 

[district] court acted arbitrarily or irrationally in admitting 

evidence.” United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 732 (4th 

Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our 

thorough review of the record and the relevant legal authorities 

leads us to the conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion 

in the district court’s evidentiary rulings. 
4

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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 in the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED