Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jasper Jabari EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-23
Citations: 214 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 06-4017
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jasper Jabari EDWARDS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jasper Jabari EDWARDS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-4017.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 5, 2007.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2007.
Jeffrey B. Welty, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jasper Edwards was convicted of conspiracy to distribute less than 50 grams of crack and distribution of 30.6 grams of crack. 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B), 846 (West 1999). He was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment and urges on appeal that he is entitled to a new trial on four grounds. We have reviewed the four issues raised by Edwards and find only one merits discussion.
During trial, the district court excluded evidence proffered by Edwards regarding his future plans and intentions. Edwards offered testimony from his father about conversations they had about his future plans and Edwards's handwritten notes about legitimate job opportunities he was interested in pursuing. Edwards contends this evidence should have been admitted under the then-existing state of mind exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3). We hold that even if there were error, any error was harmless. See United States v. Nyman, 649 F.2d 208, 212 (4th Cir.1980) (finding that the test of harmlessness was whether the Court believed it "highly probable that the error did not affect the judgment" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we find no reversible error and affirm Edwards's 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.