US v. Michael Quinn, No. 10-5129 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5129 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL QUINN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00442-JFM-1) Submitted: June 29, 2012 Decided: July 10, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary A. Ticknor, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Quinn appeals his convictions following a jury trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. manufacture controlled § 843 (2006). rulings § 922(g) made (2006), and substances, possessing in violation 354 of 21 to U.S.C. On appeal, Quinn challenges several evidentiary by the district court. This evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Hodge, materials F.3d 305, 312 (4th Cir. court reviews United States v. 2004). Applying this standard, we affirm. Quinn provide review notice of the first of contends certain record that evidence leads us to the it Government offered conclude did not at trial. A that Quinn had adequate notice of the evidence presented by the Government. Quinn next argues that Fed. R. Crim. P. 404(b) prohibited the introduction of portions of the trial evidence. Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act as proof of a person s character when it is used to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion that allows for the introduction of all evidence except that which proves only criminal disposition. United States v. Sanchez, 188 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir. 1997). 2 We find no merit in Quinn s argument that Rule 404(b) was violated. A search of Quinn that occurred prior to his arrest on the charges of which he was ultimately convicted and testimony of his subsequent admission that he had possessed a handgun during that earlier search were relevant to Quinn s state of mind and intent to unlawfully possess weaponry. See, e.g., United States v. Cassell, 292 F.3d 788, 793 (D.C. Cir. 2002) issue, (noting that evidence in of cases where previous unlawful possession knowledge and intent of crime charged). can possession be is at relevant to We thus conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting such evidence. We also conclude that admission of a letter found in Quinn s possession during the execution of a search warrant was relevant to show Quinn s possession and knowledge of the contraband at issue and was not overly prejudicial. United States v. Smith, 441 F.3d 254, 262 (4th Cir. See 2006) (testimony of son that he delivered drugs for his father was not overly prejudicial). Finally, we conclude that reference to Quinn s fugitive status was not an abuse of discretion because evidence of flight is admissible to prove guilty conscience. United States v. Peoples, 748 F.2d 934, 936 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2006) ( the jury unquestionably was entitled to draw the reasonable inference that Moye fled because he knew he was prohibited under federal 3 law from possessing firearms. ); United States v. Obi, 239 F.3d 662, 665 (4th Cir. 2001). Quinn next argues that the district court erred in allowing the membership Government inquire into and examination. district to introduce other evidence "bad of acts" his during gang cross- After reviewing the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the evidence to which Quinn objects because Quinn s gang affiliation was relevant to his motive for possessing a weapon and his involvement in drug transactions. Quinn lastly challenges the district court s denial of his motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. A decision not to require disclosure of an informant is within the discretion of the district court. F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (4th Cir. United States v. Gray, 47 1995). Under the abuse of discretion standard, this Court may not substitute its judgment for that whether of the the district [district] court; rather, court s [it] exercise must of determine discretion, considering the law and facts, was arbitrary or capricious. United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995). Here, the informant was not a participant in the crimes Quinn was charged necessary with. for Thus, Quinn s his identity defense, 4 and we or testimony will not was not disturb the district court s conclusion that the identity should be kept confidential. Accordingly, sentence. legal before affirm Quinn s convictions and We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the we court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
