Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey BRADFORD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-30
Citations: 43 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 02-4060
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey BRADFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 43
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey BRADFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4060.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 16, 2002.
Decided Aug. 30, 2002.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Bradford appeals his conviction following a jury trial of one count of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a), (d) (2000). Bradford was sentenced to 300 months in prison and five years of supervised release. We affirm.
Bradford argues that the district court erred when it interrupted the testimony of a government witness, Christopher Gendreau, and then permitted the Government to recall witness Jeff Hensley in order to lay the appropriate foundation for Hensley's co-conspirator statements under Fed. R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Under Fed.R.Evid. 611(a), the district court has broad authority to exercise reasonable control over the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. We review the district court's control over the presentation of witnesses for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Tindle, 808 F.2d 319, 328 (4th Cir.1986). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm Bradford's conviction. 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.