to consider only the evidence before it during its deliberations. (Id. at 18 n. 5). In this case, the. district court did not abuse its discretion by using, or allowing the use of the word “felon” or the phrase “felon in possession” to describe Ray’s charge under § 922(g). As Ray points out, § 922(g) does not use the word “felon,” either in the title or text of the statute: it refers only to a person who has been convicted in any' court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, which is an element the Government must prove during its case-in-chief. Although Old Chief requires the Government to accept a defendant’s offer to stipulate to a. prior felony conviction, see Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 191, 117 S.Ct. 644, 655, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997) (<HOLDING>), it is still the Government’s burden to prove
holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the record when an admission was available holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding the courts ruling to admit or exclude evidence will only be reversed if it constituted an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law