Court Opinion

ID: 999739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:30:21.639183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:12.938436
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4167

MICHAEL HAMMOND,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-389-A)

Submitted: July 20, 1999

Decided: September 24, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gregory B. English, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, James G. Duncan,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael Hammond appeals from an eighteen-month sentence
imposed following his jury convictions for assault by striking, beat-
ing, or wounding, 18 U.S.C.A. § 113(a)(4) (West Supp. 1999), and
prisoner possession of a shank, 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (West Supp. 1999)
(assimilating Virginia Code Ann. § 53.1-203(4) (Michie 1998)). We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Hammond first argues on appeal that the district court erred by
denying his motion in limine. We find that Hammond invited the
alleged error when he testified on direct examination and introduced
the evidence which he sought to exclude by filing the motion in
limine. This Court has long held that an appeal may not lie from an
error which the defendant himself has caused. See United States v.
Jackson, 124 F.3d 607, 615-16 (4th Cir. 1997).

We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in excluding the evidence of Corporal Williams' prior reprimand and
that, even assuming the decision was in error, such error constituted
harmless error. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402; see also United States v.
Brooks, 111 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm
Hammond's convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2