2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-2-2004 

# U SA v . Geddes P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2802

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ge dde s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 629. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/629* Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by desig nation. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No . 03-2802

___________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. AARO N GED DES,

Appellant

________________________ ON APPE AL FROM THE UNIT ED STA TES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEW JERSEY Distri ct Court J udge: The Honorable MaryL. Cooper

(D.C. No. 02-cr -00705)

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

May 6, 2004 BE FO RE : SL OV ITE R a nd F UE NT ES , Circu it Judges ,

and PO LL AK , Distri ct Judge . * (Opinion Fi led: J une 2, 2004)

________________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

________________________-2-

FU EN TE S, Circuit

Judge : In Ju ne 20 02 , N ew Je rse y polic e arres ted Appell ant Aaron Geddes when they observed him appeari ng to sel l narcot ics t o an unidentifie d buyer, who was allowed to le ave. During the a rrest , G eddes attem pted to draw a G lock s emi-a utom atic pisto l from his waistband, but

th e o ff ic er s s ubd ue d Ge ddes and fo rcibl y confi scated t he fire arm. Geddes was arrai gned on various state charges, as well as a f ederal charge of fel on in posses sion of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); he was convict ed by a j ury on the feder al char ge in April2003 and sen tenc ed to 110 mo nth s im priso nm ent. Geddes now appeals on three grounds: 1) the governmentdid not pr ovide suffi cient evidence t

hat thegun owned by Geddes had t ravele d in inter state commerce; 2) the D istrict Co urt erred in refusing to h old discove ry on Gedd es’s cla im that he wa s selec tively prose cuted ; and 3 ) the D istrict Co urt imp rope rly all ow ed th e governmentto ente r into ev id ence the fact that Geddes was participating i n a narcotics trans acti on before bei ng arres ted. None of these ar guments has any merit. First , the government provi ded suffici ent evidence to satisfy§ 922(g)’s requirement that Geddes possesse d his fi rearm “i n or affecting com me rce.” At tri al, the government presented unre futed evide nce th at Ge ddes ’s pistol is manufacturedonlyin Austri a, and is impo rted into the U.S. e xclusi velythrough a di stributor in Georgia. Geddes’ s gun must have tr aveled i n inter state commerce to re ach N ew Je rse y, and the government

ther efo re fu lfilled its bu rde n of pro of. United S tates v. Singletary , 268 F.3d 196, 204 -05 (3 d C ir. 2001 ); accord United S tates v. Cow ard , 296 F.3d 176, 183-84 (3d-3-

Cir. 200 2). Second, the District Court properl y deni ed Ged des’s reque st for an evide ntiary hearing on hi s sele ctiveprosecution claim because Geddes has not pres ented any evi dence that he w as prosecu ted more vigorousl y than simil arlysituated defendants on the basi s of a suspect clas sific ation . United States v. Armstrong , 51 7 U .S . 45 6, 4 70 (1 99 6) . F in all y, Ged des’s evidentiaryappeal fai ls becaus e evidence of the drug t

ransaction was nece ssary to expla in to the jur

y why the poli ce approached Geddes i n the fi rst pl ace, and was not admitt ed to “sho w a mere prop ensity or dispos iti on on t he p art o f the def end ant to com mit th e crim e.” United States v. Cruz , 326 F.3d 39 2, 395 (3d C ir. 2003 ) (interna l quo tations o mitted ); see also United States v. Butc h , 256 F .3d 17 1, 175 -76 (3 d C ir. 2001 ) (evid ence is adm issible if it is necessary backg round inf ormation ra ther than an a ttempt to impu gn def endan t’s chara cter). A ccord ingly, we affirm the D istrict Co urt’s jud gm ent.