US v. Elton Barnes, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00091-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4621]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
ELTON BARNES, JR., a/k/a Reggie Woodard,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00091-F-1)
October 25, 2016
November 3, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Barbara D. Kocher, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
A federal jury convicted Elton Barnes, Jr. of possession of
a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
The district court sentenced Barnes to 120 months of
imprisonment and he now appeals.
For the reasons that follow,
Barnes first argues on appeal that the district court erred
in admitting a hearsay statement at trial, and that admission of
the statement violated his right to confront witnesses against
him guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
We review the district
court’s admission of evidence for abuse of discretion.
States v. Moore, 810 F.3d 932, 939 (4th Cir. 2016).
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove
Hearsay is generally inadmissible.
Fed. R. Evid. 802.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
See United States v. Weaver, 282 F.3d 302, 313-14
(4th Cir. 2002) (evidentiary rulings are subject to review for
In addition, we reject Barnes’ argument that
admission of the statement violated his Sixth Amendment rights.
“Only ‘testimonial’ statements are excludable under the Sixth
Amendment’s Confrontation Clause”, Moore, 810 F.3d at 939, and
Pg: 3 of 4
applying an enhancement in offense level under the Sentencing
obliterated serial number where the jury acquitted him of the
charge of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial
In reviewing the district court’s calculations under
conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.”
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010).
Here, the district court committed no error in applying the
Guidelines enhancement as the charged offense and the Guidelines
enhancement have different elements.
The Guidelines direct a
court to apply a four-level enhancement in the offense level
believe that the firearm . . . had an altered or obliterated
USSG § 2K2.1 cmt. n.8(B).
Under 18 U.S.C.
altered or obliterated is an element of the offense.
Pg: 4 of 4
acquitted conduct at sentencing as long as the court finds such
relevant conduct by a preponderance of the evidence.
States v. Perry, 560 F.3d 246, 258 (4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?