US v. Robert Scott, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00164-RGD-DEM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999738730]. [14-4899]

Appeal: 14-4899

Doc: 43

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4899

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT HAROLD SCOTT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00164-RGD-DEM-1)

Submitted:

September 30, 2015

Decided:

January 20, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Caroline S.
Platt, Appellate Attorney, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Elizabeth M. Yusi, Jay
V. Prabhu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4899

Doc: 43

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert
conspiracy

Harold
to

pornography,
commerce

Scott,

produce
receipt

facility

to

Jr.,

child
of

his

pornography,

child

entice

appeals

conviction

production

pornography,

use

a

engage

minor

activity, and destruction of records.

to

of

of

for
child

interstate
in

sexual

On appeal, Scott contends

that the district court erred in admitting evidence of other
acts of misconduct pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

Finding no

error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse
of discretion.
Cir. 2011).

United States v. Byers, 649 F.3d 197, 213 (4th

“Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not

admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that
on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
character.”

FED. R. EVID. 404(b)(1).

However, such evidence is

admissible to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
FED. R. EVID. 404(b)(2); see United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991,
994 (4th Cir. 1997).

“Rule 404(b) is viewed as an inclusive

rule, admitting all evidence of other crimes or acts except that
which tends to prove only criminal disposition.”

United States

v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
must

be

(1)

“To be admissible under Rule 404(b), evidence

relevant

to

an

issue
2

other

than

character;

(2)

Appeal: 14-4899

Doc: 43

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

necessary; and (3) reliable.”
omitted).

The

evidence’s

Id. (internal quotation marks

prejudicial

effect

substantially outweigh its probative value.

also

must

not

Byers, 649 F.3d at

206; see FED. R. EVID. 403.
In this case, the critical issue at trial was not whether
the alleged offenses had occurred, but whether Scott was the
individual

who

had

committed

them.

To

prove

identity,

the

Government sought to present evidence relating to Scott’s prior
state convictions for extortion, conspiracy, and larceny.

The

pattern of conduct alleged at Scott’s trial was, in all material
respects, strikingly similar to the conduct that underlay his
state

convictions.

highly

probative

404(b).

of

Consequently,

the

identity

thus

and

prior-act

See Queen, 132 F.3d at 996-97.

evidence

admissible

under

was
Rule

Moreover, the district

court’s careful limiting instructions to the jury mitigated any
possibility of unfair prejudice.

We therefore conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
evidence under Rule 404(b).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
3