US v. Nevyou Alemu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00033-IMK-MJA-3. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999918701]. [15-4816]

Appeal: 15-4816

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4816

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NEVYOU ALEMU,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00033-IMK-MJA-3)

Submitted:

August 25, 2016

Decided:

August 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen D. Herndon, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Zelda E.
Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4816

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Nevyou Alemu appeals his conviction after a bench trial for
conspiracy to possess stolen firearms and aiding and abetting
the possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 371, 922(j), 924(a)(2) (2012).

Alemu’s only assertion on

appeal is that the district court erred in refusing to admit
into evidence a disc containing audio recordings of his related
state court proceedings.
This Court reviews a district court’s evidentiary rulings
for abuse of discretion.
746, 751 (4th Cir. 2011).

United States v. Medford, 661 F.3d
Thus, we “afford[] the evidentiary

ruling substantial deference, and will not overturn the ruling
unless

the

decision

was

arbitrary

(internal quotation marks omitted).

and

irrational.”

Id.

Our review of the record

reveals no abuse of the district court’s discretion in excluding
the evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 608(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

2