United States v. Tommy Strickland, 702 F. App'x 154

Defendant Tommy Ray Strickland was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
On appeal Strickland raised three challenges: (1) government vouching for a law-enforcement witness in closing argument; (2) district court allowing a court employee to replay a trial-admitted traffic-stop video for the jury while Strickland was absent; and (3) alleged failure to adequately address his motion for a variant sentence and to explain the within-Guidelines 115-month sentence.
Strickland did not contemporaneously object to the prosecutor’s closing remarks or make a sufficiently specific objection to the replay in the jury room, so those claims were reviewed for plain error.
The district court admitted the video into evidence and replayed it for the jury; the replay occurred in the jury room with a court employee operating the equipment.
At sentencing the court considered the Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors and imposed a 115‑month sentence within the Guidelines range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial vouching/bolstering in closing	Strickland: prosecutor vouched for witness credibility beyond the record, impermissibly assuring jurors.	Government: closing relied on trial evidence and invited jurors to assess credibility, not personal assurance.	No reversible error; argument invited jurors to assess evidence rather than impermissibly vouch.
Replay of video in jury room with defendant absent	Strickland: replaying admitted evidence outside the courtroom and in his absence violated Rule 43, Due Process, and Confrontation Clause.	Government/district court: replay of admitted recording for jury is not a critical stage implicating Rule 43 or Confrontation rights.	No plain error: playback of an admitted recording in jury room did not violate constitutional or Rule 43 rights.
Sentencing: failure to address variance motion and explain sentence	Strickland: court did not adequately address his request for a variant sentence or explain why it imposed a top‑of‑range sentence.	Government: court considered the § 3553(a) factors, heard defendant’s arguments, and provided sufficient explanation for within‑Guidelines sentence.	No abuse of discretion; court adequately considered arguments and explained sentence; within‑Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable.

United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2010) (prosecutorial vouching principle)
United States v. Walker, 155 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 1998) (two‑part test for vouching)
United States v. Lopez, 860 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2017) (plain‑error standard affecting substantial rights)
United States v. Pratt, 351 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 2003) (harmless‑error approach under Rule 43 context)
United States v. Chadwell, 798 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2015) (replay of admitted exhibit for jury did not implicate confrontation/Rule 43)
United States v. Monserrate‑Valentín, 729 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2013) (playback of admitted recording not a Confrontation Clause stage)
United States v. Sobamowo, 892 F.2d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (replaying tape without defendant present did not violate confrontation or due process)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive sentencing review framework)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requirement that sentencing court give an explanation sufficient to show consideration of arguments)