Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl L. LILLISTON, d/b/a Darryl Lilliston Seafood, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-17
Citations: 18 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 01—4103
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl L. LILLISTON, d/b/a Darryl Lilliston Seafood, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: . Before WIDENER and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 18
Pages: 218–218

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl L. LILLISTON, d/b/a Darryl Lilliston Seafood, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01—4103.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 31, 2001.
Decided Sept. 17, 2001.
Jon C. Poulson, Law Offices of Jon C. Poulson, Accomac, VA; James O. Brocco-letti, Zoby & Broccoletti, Norfolk, VA, for appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, Robert J. Krask, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.
. Before WIDENER and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Darryl L. Lilliston was convicted after a two-day bench trial of one count of violating the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C.A. § 3372(a)(2)(A), 3373(d)(1) (West 2000), and sentenced to four months imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. Lilliston appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the district court erred in excluding certain evidence and in admitting evidence of his prior convictions.
We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Lilliston's trial, and find that his conviction is supported by substantial evidence. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc). We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the testimony of certain defense witnesses. United States v. Hassouneh, 199 F.3d 175, 182 (4th Cir.2000). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence Lilliston's six prior state court convictions for possession of undersized crabs. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir.1997).
Accordingly, we affirm Lilliston'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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.