Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207512/United-States-v-Nicholas-Gonzales-Flores-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:12:59+00:00

Document:
for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge.
opinion, in which Judge Gregory and Judge Duncan joined.
and magazine, and $954 in cash.
interstate or foreign commerce, see 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A).
reconsider the motion in limine should "any prejudice" or "evidence of prejudice" arise during the course of the trial.
number of law-enforcement officers involved in the investigation and arrest of Gonzales-Flores.
included offense of simple possession of methamphetamine.
the hearing in Gonzales-Floress absence.
United States v. Rolle, 204 F.3d 133, 138-39 (4th Cir. 2000).
district court proceedings." United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
it "seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id. at 732 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985)).
a criminal prosecution at which a defendant must be "present"
and the return of the verdict; and (3) sentencing." Fed. R.
v. Lawrence, 248 F.3d 300, 303-04 (4th Cir. 2001).
initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea"
present, Rule 43 proceeds to exempt specific kinds of proceedings from this requirement. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b).
decided by the judge, concerning the application or interpretation of the law." Blacks Law Dictionary 1366 (9th ed. 2009).
court and excluded from the jury." Id.
and the wrongdoing of the government," United States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 317 (4th Cir. 1997).
resolve in managing criminal trials.
Consider the hearing held by the district court in this case.
issues that arise over the course of a criminal proceeding.
issues that arose in this case.
reserved for decisions that involve some factual component.
out-of-court statement constitutes inadmissible "hearsay"
prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Fed.
the actual purpose for which a party is introducing an out-ofcourt statement. Moreover, we review a district courts hearsay rulings for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
hearing on a question of law."
by [the defendants] absence." Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S.
730, 745 (1987) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S.
served where the proceeding at issue concerns a legal question, precisely the situation contemplated by Rule 43(b)(3).
any expertise on such matters.
see, e.g., United States v. Gunter, 631 F.2d 583, 589 (8th Cir.
than at the trial and sentencing proceedings at which a defendants presence is a must.
misdemeanor cases to absent themselves and, if so, to determine in what types of misdemeanors and to what extent").
trial-management functions of district courts.
requirement. We decline to hamstring district courts by undercutting Rule 43s plain text.
the Constitution. See United States v. Rolle, 204 F.3d 133, 136-37 (4th Cir.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.