Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 09-4911
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam OGrady, District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00188-LO-1)
Submitted:
SHEDD,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
August 6, 2010
HAMILTON,
Senior
Anthony
L. Ricco, Steven Z. Legon, New York, New York, for
Appellant.
Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Benjamin
L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
PER CURIAM:
A
jury
convicted
Wesley
E.
Phillips,
Jr.,
of
two
Urban
Development
(HUD)
during
the
course
of
an
court
sentenced
him
to
two
years
of
The
probation.
the
sufficiency
of
the
evidence.
Finding
no
reversible
error, we affirm.
Phillips first contends that the district court erred
by
excluding
two
defense
witnesses.
He
asserts
that
the
witness.
constitutional
Although
right
to
present
criminal
evidence
in
defendant
his
has
favor,
see,
e.g., United States v. Moussaoui, 382 F.3d 453, 471 (4th Cir.
2004),
a defendants
right
to
present
defense
is
not
that
the
district
irrelevant or immaterial.
court,
in
its
discretion,
deems
166, 177 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1736 (2010).
We review a
United States v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180, 185 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating
standard of review).
With
portions
of
these
the
standards
trial
in
transcript
mind,
our
included
review
in
the
of
record
the
on
its
discretion
Moreover,
even
by
excluding
assuming
that
the
the
witnesses
district
court
testimony.
abused
its
harmless
examination
where
attacking
witness
subjected
credibility).
to
Thus,
vigorous
cross-
Phillips
is
not
district
courts
Phillips
contends
that
the
We
599
F.3d
360,
377
(4th
Cir.
United States v.
2010).
In
determining
the
controlling
instructions
law.
Id.
at
accurately
378
3
and
(internal
fairly
quotation
state
marks
the
and
citation
omitted).
Because
the
district
court
correctly
also
to
asserts
establish
that
that
his
the
evidence
statements
to
was
the
was
not
competent
to
regarding
HUDs
decision
conclude
that
the
district
court
did
not
err
in
Thus,
denying
that
the
Phillips
prosecutor
closing argument.
challenges
made
an
his
convictions
improper
comment
on
the
during
to
reverse
conviction
based
upon
In
prosecutorial
is none.
Cir.
1997)
(stating
standard
of
review).
The
prosecutors
In any
at
626
(discussing
factors
courts
should
when
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
AFFIRMED