Opinion
No. 18-4914
08-09-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TONY WASHINGTON, a/k/a Antonio Wallace, Defendant - Appellant.
A.D. Martin, LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY D. MARTIN, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00235-CCB-10) Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. A.D. Martin, LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY D. MARTIN, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Tony Washington appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 860 (2012). Washington argues that the district court erroneously admitted expert testimony that was inadequately disclosed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G), violating his constitutional right to a fair trial. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the Government timely and adequately disclosed the requisite details of the challenged expert testimony. Furthermore, Washington has not established that he was prejudiced by the alleged inadequacy. See United States v. Smith, 701 F.3d 1002, 1008 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, see United States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49, 54 (4th Cir. 1996) (stating standard of review), and we affirm the district court's criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED