Court Opinion

ID: 9367799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 21:00:30.608274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:03.602249
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4586      Doc: 42         Filed: 01/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4586

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MARC ALLEN WILLIAMS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cr-00242-LO-1)

        Submitted: November 29, 2022                                      Decided: January 31, 2023

        Before KING, DIAZ, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: John L. Machado, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MACHADO, Washington, D.C.,
        for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Katherine E.
        Rumbaugh, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4586      Doc: 42         Filed: 01/31/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marc Allen Williams was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm after being

        convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C.

        § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Williams to 42 months of imprisonment, to be

        followed by 3 years of supervised release. Williams now challenges two of the district

        court’s evidentiary rulings: its exclusion of portions of an audio recording with prior

        statements of a government witness, and its admission of testimony from that same witness

        about Williams’ previous arrest and guilty plea for possessing a different firearm.

               Because Williams made the same objections before the district court and has thus

        preserved them, we review the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and do not disturb

        even an erroneous ruling that was harmless. See United States v. Walker, 32 F.4th 377, 394

        (4th Cir. 2022). We have reviewed the record and conclude any error was harmless. We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                     2