Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Edward E. Smallwood, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Edward Smallwood's convictions for conspiracy to destroy a building used in interstate commerce by fire and aiding and abetting the destruction of property by fire. Smallwood claimed on appeal that the district court erred in allowing certain evidence to be introduced under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the Court of Appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and affirmed Smallwood's convictions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-03-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-4761

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Edward Smallwood's convictions for conspiracy to destroy a building used in interstate commerce by fire and aiding and abetting the destruction of property by fire. Smallwood claimed on appeal that the district court erred in allowing certain evidence to be introduced under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the Court of Appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and affirmed Smallwood's convictions.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Edward E. Smallwood, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed Edward Smallwood's convictions for conspiracy to destroy a building used in interstate commerce by fire and aiding and abetting the destruction of property by fire. Smallwood claimed on appeal that the district court erred in allowing certain evidence to be introduced under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the Court of Appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and affirmed Smallwood's convictions.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-4761

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    EDWARD EUGENE SMALLWOOD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-70076)

    Submitted:

    March 10, 2000

    Decided:

    March 27, 2000

    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Daniel J. Travostino, Christopher M. Dove, DANIEL J. TRAVOSTINO,
    P.C., Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr.,
    United States Attorney, Thomas J. Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United
    States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Edward Eugene Smallwood appeals his convictions for conspiracy
    to destroy by fire a building used in interstate commerce and aiding and abetting the destruction of property by fire.

    On appeal,

    Smallwood claims that the district court erred by allowing the


    Government to introduce Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) material at trial. We
    do not find that the district court abused its discretion in allowing this evidence.

    See United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995

    (4th Cir. 1997) (providing standard), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1101
    (1998).

    A district court will not be found to have abused its

    discretion unless its decision to admit evidence under Rule 404(b)


    was arbitrary or irrational.

    United States v. Haney, 914 F.2d

    602, 607 (4th Cir. 1990).


    Accordingly, we affirm Smallwoods convictions.

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like