United States of America v.  DARRYL L. LILLISTON, d/b/a Darryl Lilliston Seafood

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4103 
DARRYL L. LILLISTON, d/b/a Darryl
Lilliston Seafood,
Defendant-Appellant. 
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CR-00-146)
Submitted: August 31, 2001
Decided: September 17, 2001
Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL
Jon C. Poulson, LAW OFFICES OF JON C. POULSON, Accomac,
Virginia; James O. Broccoletti, ZOBY & BROCCOLETTI, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney,
Robert J. Krask, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.

-- 1 of 2 --

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Darryl L. Lilliston was convicted after a two-day bench trial of one
count of violating the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A),
3373(d)(1) (West 2000), and sentenced to four months imprisonment,
followed by three years of supervised release. Lilliston appeals,
claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction,
and that the district court erred in excluding certain evidence and in
admitting evidence of his prior convictions.
We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Lilliston’s
trial, and find that his conviction is supported by substantial evidence.
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). We also find that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the testimony
of certain defense witnesses. United States v. Hassouneh, 199 F.3d
175, 182 (4th Cir. 2000). Finally, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by admitting into evidence Lilliston’s six prior state court
convictions for possession of undersized crabs. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b);
United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we affirm Lilliston’s conviction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2 UNITED STATES v. LILLISTON

-- 2 of 2 --