UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ALVANIA BOONE, JR., 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00302-WO-1) 

Submitted: April 17, 2013 Decided: May 3, 2013

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN, 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. 

DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Alvania Boone, Jr., was convicted after a jury trial 

of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006), and sentenced to 

seventy-eight months’ imprisonment. Boone’s counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

questioning whether the district court erred, under Fed. R. 

Evid. 404(b), in admitting testimony that knives were recovered 

during a search of Boone’s person incident to his arrest. 

Boone has filed three pro se supplemental briefs. We affirm. 

We review the district court’s admission or exclusion 

of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lighty, 

616 F.3d 321, 351 (4th Cir. 2010). Rule 404(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Evidence states that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or 

other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in 

order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in 

accordance with the character.” Such evidence, however, “may be 

admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, 

opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, 

absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). 

To be admissible under Rule 404(b), the evidence at issue must 

be “(1) relevant to an issue other than character; 

(2) necessary; and (3) reliable.” United States v. Siegel, 
3

536 F.3d 306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “Rule 404(b) is . . . an inclusive rule, admitting 

all evidence of other crimes or acts except that which tends to 

prove only criminal disposition,” United States v. Young, 

248 F.3d 260, 271-72 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks 

omitted), and, “[a]s a rule of inclusion, the rule’s list is not 

exhaustive.” United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 994-95 

(4th Cir. 1997). 

“Evidence sought to be admitted under Rule 404(b) must 

also satisfy [Fed. R. Evid.] 403[.]” Siegel, 536 F.3d at 319. 

“Rule 403 only requires suppression of evidence that results in 

unfair prejudice — prejudice that damages an opponent for 

reasons other than its probative value, for instance, an appeal 

to emotion, and only when that unfair prejudice substantially 

outweighs the probative value of the evidence.” 

United States v. Mohr, 318 F.3d 613, 619-20 (4th Cir. 2003) 

(internal quotation marks, emphasis, and alteration omitted). 

After review of the record, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the 

testimony regarding the recovery of the knives into evidence. 

The testimony was relevant to issues other than Boone’s 

character and necessary, see United States v. Aramony, 88 F.3d 

1369, 1377 (4th Cir. 1996) (addressing standards for 

admissibility under Rule 404(b)), and Boone does not challenge 
4

the reliability of the testimony. Further, the probative value 

of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by confusion 

or unfair prejudice. Although the information may have been 

damaging to Boone, it did not “subordinate reason to emotion in 

the factfinding process.” United States v. Gray, 405 F.3d 227, 

239 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Additionally, in accordance with Anders, we have 

reviewed Boone’s pro se supplemental briefs and the remainder of 

the record and have found no meritorious issues for review. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Boone, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Boone requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Boone. 

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 the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED