Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207761/United-States-v-Joseph-Hall-4th-Cir-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:27:32+00:00

Document:
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
in which Judge King and Judge Thacker joined.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g).
Finding no merit in his appellate contentions, we affirm.
evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 341 n.14 (4th Cir. 2012).
eventually allowed Underwood to purchase the guns.
Cordery noticed that Hall stayed very close to Underwood.
with the guns and ammunition.
purchase the guns and additional money for her assistance.
the guns to her boyfriend.
his home in Detroit, Michigan.
violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) & 2(a).
the first count but convicted him on the second.
firearms, constructive possession is sufficient.
v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136-37 (4th Cir. 2001).
United States v. Armstrong, 187 F.3d 392, 396 (4th Cir. 1999).
purchased the guns together in Cabelas.
and drove away with the guns.
establish that Hall had constructive possession of the guns.
which should have been excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
testimony for abuse of discretion.
F.3d 321, 351 (4th Cir. 2010).
out of the same series of events as the gun purchase.
necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.
(internal quotations and alterations omitted).
did not abuse its discretion by allowing it.
into evidence the gun recovered near his home in Detroit.
Lighty, 616 F.3d at 351.
discretion and affirm the district courts ruling.
a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.
and we affirm that ruling.
decision to deny his motion for a mistrial.
suspect and you cant believe what she says.
to incriminate this guy? Why? What motive?
what motive Underwood had to inculpate Hall.
United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 307 (4th Cir.
such a degree that they deprived him of a fair trial.
States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102, 113 (4th Cir. 1990).
points to no such evidence.
the two occasions described above.
to this conversation with Cordery.
that Cordery could not definitively identify Hall in it.
least one of the visits.
On appeal, Hall raises two issues that involve the display.
Hall was, in fact, Underwoods companion in the store.
and store video showing Hall with Underwood.
substantially swayed by the error.
States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946)).
See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S.
display for pretrial identification was unduly suggestive).
Cabelasso they are harmless and do not entitle Hall to relief.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Halls conviction.

References: v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.