Where a defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting testimony from an officer about photo-lineup evidence from an eyewitness in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the eyewitness did not testify at trial, the admission of the evidence did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights because the evidence overwhelmingly established that the defendant possessed a firearm, so the defendant did not show plain error, and the judgment is affirmed because the evidence was sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing two special conditions on the term of supervised release.
Judgment is affirmed.
U.S. v. Hollingshed (MLW No. 73996/Case No. 17-2951 – 14 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Smith, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court of Appeals, Southern District of Iowa, Jarvey, J. (Heather Quick, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, argued for appellant) (Melisa K. Zaehringer, Davenport, Iowa, argued for appellee).