US v. Olusola Idowu
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00298-MJG-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998662031].. [10-4954]
Appeal: 10-4954
Document: 46
Date Filed: 08/24/2011
Page: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4954
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
OLUSOLA IDOWU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00298-MJG-1)
Submitted:
August 4, 2011
Decided:
August 24, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Susan A. Hensler, Staff
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Peter M. Nothstein, Bonnie S. Greenberg,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-4954
Document: 46
Date Filed: 08/24/2011
Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Olusola Idowu appeals from her wire fraud convictions,
asserting that the district court improperly instructed the jury
on the materiality of the false statements transmitted by wire.
The charged wire fraud concerned loan applications transmitted
in
2004
and
2005
and
income and assets.
containing
false
information
regarding
Idowu’s defense at trial was that the false
statements at issue were not material because, in 2004 and 2005,
mortgage funders did not rely on these statements as lenders
were just hoping to make a quick profit and sell the mortgages.
Finding the jury instructions were proper, we affirm.
Idowu claims the district court erred by not using the
materiality
instruction
she
provided
to
the
court,
which
specified that the false statements must have been material to a
reasonable person approving mortgage loans in 2004 and 2005.
Idowu asserts that the failure to give this instruction impaired
her ability to mount an effective defense because the jury was
not
directed
to
consider
the
relevant
time
frame.
Idowu
contends that her defense rested on the drastic difference in
underwriting
standards
compared
today,
to
and
during
that
the
the
relevant
court’s
time
period,
instruction
was
when
not
specific enough to alert the jury to the issue.
The Government notes that Iduwo did not object to the
district court’s jury instructions when given the opportunity
2
Appeal: 10-4954
Document: 46
Date Filed: 08/24/2011
Page: 3 of 5
and thus review is for plain error.
Iduwo claims that her
request for a different instruction was sufficient to preserve
her objection.
Iduwo is incorrect.
In United States v. Nicolaou, 180 F.3d 565, 569 (4th
Cir. 1999), we reviewed for plain error the Appellant’s claim
that the jury instruction was improper.
Like in this case, the
Appellant submitted a proposed instruction but did not object
when the court gave different instructions to the jury.
Under
Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, objections
to the jury instructions or to the failure to give a requested
instruction must be specific and the court must be informed of
the grounds for objection before the jury retires to deliberate.
Under Rule 30, “[f]ailure to object in accordance with this rule
precludes appellate review” except for plain error.
By virtue of not objecting to the district court’s
materiality
instruction,
Idowu
failed
Thus, our review is for plain error.
to
preserve
her
claim.
See also United States v.
Arthurs, 73 F.3d 444, 447-48 (1st Cir. 1996) (requiring strict
compliance with Rule 30 and holding that pre-charge colloquy or
written objections will not suffice; an objection is required
after the jury is charged and before the jury retires).
Under
the plain error standard, Idowu must show: (1) there was error;
(2)
the
error
substantial
was
rights.
plain;
United
and
(3)
States
3
the
v.
error
Olano,
affected
507
U.S.
her
725,
Appeal: 10-4954
732-34
Document: 46
(1993).
Date Filed: 08/24/2011
When
these
Page: 4 of 5
conditions
are
satisfied,
we
may
exercise our discretion to notice the error only if the error
“seriously
affect[s]
reputation
of
the
judicial
proceedings.”
quotation marks omitted).
on the defendant.
fairness,
integrity
Id.
at
or
736
public
(internal
The burden of showing plain error is
United States v. Strickland, 245 F.3d 368,
379-80 (4th Cir. 2001).
Initially, we note that Idowu does not address the
plain
error
review
standard
in
her
brief
and
support her burden of establishing plain error.
thus
fails
to
In fact, in her
reply brief, Idowu does not dispute that she cannot show plain
error.
She rests solely on her contention that plain error
review does not apply.
In any event, Idowu has failed to show any error, much
less plain error.
The district court gave a legally correct
instruction on materiality which was the functional equivalent
of Idowu’s requested instruction.
rests
on
her
conclusion
that
Idowu’s assertion of error
the
jury
was
not
properly
instructed that materiality should be viewed in light of what a
reasonable and prudent lender would have relied upon in 2004 and
2005.
However, the instruction given informed the jurors that
they were to consider a reasonable and prudent lender in the
circumstances of those who decided whether to make the loans at
issue.
As the loans at issue were made in 2004 and 2005, the
4
Appeal: 10-4954
jury
Document: 46
was
Date Filed: 08/24/2011
requested.
instructed,
albeit
in
Page: 5 of 5
different
words,
as
Idowu
See United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321, 366 (4th
Cir. 2010) (holding that this court will reverse for failure to
give requested instruction only if requested instruction was not
substantially covered by the court’s charge).
Moreover,
even
had
the
instruction
been
improper,
Idowu has failed to make any showing as to the remaining prongs
of the plain error test.
fraud convictions.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
Accordingly, we affirm Idowu’s wire
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
the
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?