UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4134

CHARLES L. PETERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.

Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge.

(CR-94-111-1)

Submitted: October 29, 1996

Decided: November 13, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Howard G. Higgins, Jr., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant.

William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Lisa Grimes Johnston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of various felonies in 1970 and 1982.

Appellant, who at the time resided in Pennsylvania, was apprehended

in November 1993 in Morgantown, West Virginia, outside of the

Rape and Domestic Violence Center. Appellant's wife, who had left

him the month before and who had a valid protective order against

Appellant in effect, was a client at the Center and was in the Center

at the time of Appellant's apprehension. A sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun was found on the front seat of Appellant's car. Witnesses testified

that Appellant intended to kill his wife with the shotgun. Appellant

stipulated at trial that, as a convicted felon, he was not authorized to

possess a firearm. After a two day trial, a jury convicted Appellant of

one count each of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) (1994)), possession of an unlawful, unregistered firearm

(i.e., a sawed-off shotgun) (26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (1994)), and transportation of an unlawful, unregistered firearm in interstate commerce

(26 U.S.C. § 5861(j) (1994)).

On appeal, Appellant argues that two unsolicited comments concerning a prior warrant for stalking made during the testimony of one

of the officers who apprehended him and one comment concerning

spousal abuse made during rebuttal testimony were improperly admitted as evidence of prior bad acts in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)

and unfairly prejudiced Appellant's trial.

We decline to address whether or not the comments were properly

admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) because we hold that any error

in admitting the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991). The challenged references to stalking and spousal abuse were minimal and were not

emphasized by the prosecutor. Moreover, any error was cured by the

defense counsel's objections and the district judge's limiting and

curative instructions. Since jurors are presumed to follow the judge's

instructions, it can be assumed that the challenged testimony concerning stalking was given the appropriate weight and the testimony about

spousal abuse was disregarded. See Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S.

307, 324-25 n.9 (1985); United States v. Tipton , 90 F.3d 861, 893 (4th

 2
Cir. 1996). Finally, the remaining evidence overwhelmingly supported the findings of guilty.

We therefore affirm the findings and sentence of the district court.

See United States v. Peterson, No. CR-94-111-1 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 8,

1996). 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

 3