UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5194

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC WILFORD MORRISON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-DSC-2)

Submitted: July 5, 2011 Decided: July 20, 2011

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States 

Attorney, Maria K. Vento, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Eric Wilford Morrison of one count of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms 

or more of powder cocaine and 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). He appeals, 

contending that the district court erred in denying his motion 

to exclude evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.

At Morrison’s trial, the Government presented 

testimony from a number of witnesses regarding Morrison’s 

involvement in selling powder and crack cocaine. The Government 

also presented evidence of ion scan results indicating the 

presence of cocaine on money that law enforcement seized from 

Morrison’s front pants pocket at the time of his arrest. 

Morrison challenges the ion scan evidence, contending that the 

ion scan method was not reliable.

We review the district court’s evidentiary ruling for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Delfino, 510 F.3d 468, 

470 (4th Cir. 2007). Expert testimony is admissible under 

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it concerns: (1) scientific, 

technical, or other specialized knowledge that (2) will aid the 

jury or other trier of fact to understand or resolve a fact at 

issue. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 

592 (1993). The reasoning and methodology underlying an

expert’s proffered opinion must be reliable. See id., at 593-

95. The district court conducted a Daubert hearing, at which 
3

the Government’s expert testified on direct and cross 

examination regarding the reliability of the ion scan results. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 

results into evidence.

Moreover, we agree with the Government that even if 

the district court erred by admitting the ion scan evidence, any 

error was harmless. See United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 

637 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining district court’s evidentiary 

rulings are subject to harmless error review). The Government 

presented substantial evidence of Morrison’s involvement in 

selling powder and crack cocaine during the charged conspiracy. 

See id. (“Erroneously admitted evidence is harmless if a 

reviewing court is able to ‘say, with fair assurance, after 

pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous 

action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially 

swayed by the error.’”) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 

U.S. 750, 765 (1946)).

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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED