UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4106

THURMAN J. WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-97-356)

Submitted: September 29, 1998

Decided: November 16, 1998

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joseph Stuart Lazarsky, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, M. Evan Corcoran, Assistant United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thurman J. Williams was convicted by a jury for assaulting a correctional officer with a dangerous weapon in violation of D.C. Code

Ann. § 22-505(b) (1998). He was subsequently sentenced to 100

months' imprisonment. On appeal, Williams contends that the trial

court abused its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of one of

the Government's key witnesses with respect to a prior incident at

which time the witness made a false report. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm Williams's conviction and sentence.

The evidence at trial disclosed that on the evening of August 27,

1996, Correctional Officer Aladegoke Akinsola was working in the

dining hall of the correctional facility in which Williams was an

inmate. Akinsola was responsible for collecting meal tickets from the

inmates before they received their food trays. When Williams reached

the front of the line, Akinsola asked for Williams's ticket. Williams

failed to produce one and subsequently did not produce identification

upon Akinsola's demand, but instead began cursing at Akinsola.

When Akinsola informed him that he would need to see a supervisory

officer if he did not have a meal ticket, Williams continued to curse,

and after displacing food trays, walked away. At this point, Akinsola

confronted Williams and once again demanded identification. Williams, in response, turned around and struck Akinsola above the eye

with the edge of a heavy plastic tray, knocking Akinsola to the

ground.

Both Officers Sergeant Lawrence West, Jr., and Officer James

Reaves witnessed the assault. West, approximately eight yards away

at the time, testified that he noticed Akinsola follow Williams, with

whom West had previous daily interaction. He then observed Williams turn around and strike Akinsola in the face with the tray. As he

rushed to assist, he saw Williams punch Akinsola several times.

Reaves, standing approximately ten feet away, also observed Williams striking Akinsola with the tray.

During trial, defense counsel sought to cross-examine West about

an incident in 1991 in which West was found to have given mislead-

 2
ing or inaccurate information in a written report because he failed to

disclose that he witnessed another correctional officer's aggressive

contact with an inmate. Before deciding the extent of permissible

cross-examination, the court conducted a voir dire of West outside the

presence of the jury. During that time, West informed the court that

he had been suspended for five days for failing to report that he had

witnessed the confrontation. He maintained, however, that he did not

in fact witness the incident, and that the matter was under appeal.

Although the court recognized that the matter could be probative of

truthfulness, it expressed concern that there would be a trial within a

trial of an incident that was far from the periphery of the present case.

Accordingly, the court permitted defense counsel to ask West about

the suspension he received for providing misleading information pertaining to an altercation between a correctional officer and inmate.

The court instructed defense counsel, however, not to elicit further

details concerning the incident. After hearing all the evidence presented, the jury found Williams guilty of the assault and Williams was

convicted in accordance with the jury's verdict.

Williams maintains that the trial court erred in limiting defense

counsel's cross-examination of West. Cross-examination is generally

limited to the subject matter inquired into on direct examination and

matters affecting the witness's credibility. Fed. R. Evid. 611(b). When

a witness's credibility is in issue, specific instances of the witness's

conduct may be inquired into on cross-examination only if probative

of truthfulness or untruthfulness. Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). "[T]rial judges

retain wide latitude [under] the Confrontation Clause . . . to impose

reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about,

among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues,

the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant." Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986).

The restrictions imposed by the district court on Williams's crossexamination of West fall within this wide latitude to impose reasonable limits. The court allowed defense counsel to elicit from West

during cross-examination that he received a five-day suspension from

work for providing misleading and inaccurate information relating to

an incident between a correctional officer and an inmate. This information was sufficient to relate to the jury the material aspects of the

prior incident as it pertained to the credibility of West. The court's

 3
reasoning in not allowing defense counsel to explore details of the

prior incident is sound and certainly within the scope of its discretion.

Accordingly, we find no reversible error.

We therefore affirm Williams's conviction and sentence. 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

 4