UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4678

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CEDRIC DWAYNE MORROW,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR03-81-PJM)

Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 8, 2006

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

R. William Hale, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.

Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Barbara S. Skalla, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM

Cedric Dwayne Morrow appeals his conviction for

distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(B) (2000). Finding no error, we affirm.

When Government agents approached Morrow to arrest him,

Morrow fled on foot and dropped a loaded firearm. During his

trial, the district court admitted that gun and ammunition into

evidence. Morrow claims that the district court erred by admitting

the firearm because it had no relevance to the drug trafficking

charges he faced and that its admission prejudiced him by making

him appear more dangerous to the jury. We review a district

court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United

States v. Ward, 171 F.3d 188, 195 (4th Cir. 1999).

Evidence of gun possession is relevant evidence in a drug

conspiracy trial, even if there is no specific evidence linking the

weapon to the conspiracy. Ward, 171 F.3d at 195. In addition,

“guns are tools of the drug trade and are commonly recognized

articles of narcotics paraphernalia.” Id. (citing United States v.

Ricks, 882 F.2d 885 (4th Cir. 1989)). The district court must

“determine on a case by case basis whether the potential relevance

of the gun evidence is outweighed by unfair prejudice or is barred

by any other rule of evidence.” Ward, 171 F.3d at 195. 

While the gun entered into evidence was not part of the

drug transaction specified in the indictment, during that
*Moreover, even if admission of the disputed evidence was

erroneous, any resulting error would be harmless in light of the

overwhelming evidence against Morrow. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52; United

States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir. 1997). The

conversation between Morrow and the informant arranging the drug

transaction was tape recorded, and the actual transaction was

captured on both video and audio tape.

- 3 -

transaction the confidential informant purchased a different

handgun from one of Morrow’s associates. The evidence that Morrow

possessed a handgun at a later date was clearly relevant because it

demonstrated his continuing access to weapons, the “tools of the

drug trade.” Id. The district court did not abuse its discretion

in finding that the probative value of the gun outweighed any undue

prejudice and admitting this evidence.*

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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