Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    United States v. Hammond, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 2001 in which Rodney Hammond appealed his conviction and sentence for breaking into a post office in Oak Island, North Carolina and theft of cash and money orders. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from Hammond's state probation officer despite a Rule 403 objection. The Court of Appeals held that Hammond's claim was without merit under Rule 403 and relevant case law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Hammond, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 2001 in which Rodney Hammond appealed his conviction and sentence for breaking into a post office in Oak Island, North Carolina and theft of cash and money orders. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from Hammond's state probation officer despite a Rule 403 objection. The Court of Appeals held that Hammond's claim was without merit under Rule 403 and relevant case law.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-08-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-4929

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 2001 in which Rodney Hammond appealed his conviction and sentence for breaking into a post office in Oak Island, North Carolina and theft of cash and money orders. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from Hammond's state probation officer despite a Rule 403 objection. The Court of Appeals held that Hammond's claim was without merit under Rule 403 and relevant case law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    United States v. Hammond, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case from 2001 in which Rodney Hammond appealed his conviction and sentence for breaking into a post office in Oak Island, North Carolina and theft of cash and money orders. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from Hammond's state probation officer despite a Rule 403 objection. The Court of Appeals held that Hammond's claim was without merit under Rule 403 and relevant case law.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-4929

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RODNEY FEURY HAMMOND,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-01-32-FO)

    Submitted:

    July 18, 2002

    Decided:

    August 22, 2002

    Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    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,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpening,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Rodney F. Hammond appeals his conviction and forty-one month
    sentence, after a jury trial, for breaking and entering into the
    Oak Island, North Carolina post office, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.

    2115

    (West

    Supp.

    2000),

    and

    theft

    of

    government

    property,

    specifically, cash and money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.


    641 (West 2000).
    On appeal, Hammond argues that, under Fed. R. Evid. 403, the
    district

    court

    erred

    in

    admitting

    testimony

    from

    his

    state

    probation officer, notwithstanding the district courts limiting


    instructions.

    We review the district courts determination on the

    admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.


    v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1469 (4th Cir. 1995).
    meritless.

    United States

    Hammonds claim is

    Fed. R. Evid. 403; United States v. Hines, 943 F.2d

    348, 353-54 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Silva, 745 F.2d 840,
    844 (4th Cir. 1984).
    Accordingly, we affirm Hammonds conviction and 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 significantly aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like