US v. Charles Imariagbe
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00105-ELH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000020539]. [16-4475]
Appeal: 16-4475
Doc: 45
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4475
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES IMARIAGBE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:15-cr-00105-ELH-1)
Submitted:
January 31, 2017
Decided:
February 9, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marta K. Kahn, THE LAW OFFICE OF MARTA K. KAHN, LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Caroline D. Ciraolo, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, S. Robert Lyons, Chief, Criminal
Appeals & Tax Enforcement Policy Section, Gregory Victor Davis,
Mark
S.
Determan,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF
JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4475
Doc: 45
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Charles Imariagbe on 15 counts of aiding
or
assisting
in
the
preparation
of
false
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7602(2) (2012).
tax
returns,
in
He was sentenced to 20
months’ imprisonment with a 3-year term of supervised release.
On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in admitting
evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), namely a chart of noncharged
tax
Schedule
C
returns
that
information
Imariagbe
similar
prepared
to
the
information on the charged tax returns.
that
false
contained
Schedule
C
We affirm.
Rule 404 generally prohibits evidence of other crimes or
bad
acts
to
prove
the
defendant’s
accordance with his character.
character
and
conduct
in
See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1).
Such evidence, however, may be admissible “for another purpose,
such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
“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. Young, 248 F.3d 260, 271 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
must
be
(1)
“To be admissible under Rule 404(b), evidence
relevant
to
an
necessary; and (3) reliable.”
issue
other
than
character;
(2)
United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d
306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Appeal: 16-4475
Doc: 45
Filed: 02/09/2017
Pg: 3 of 4
Additionally, evidence should be excluded under Rule 404(b) if
its probative value is substantially outweighed by its unfair
prejudice to the defendant.
United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d
286, 296-97 (4th Cir. 2010).
We review the district court’s
admission of evidence under Rule 404(b) for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir. 1997).
We conclude that the district court properly found that the
disputed
evidence
was
reliable,
necessary,
and
relevant
and
admissible to show Imariagbe’s intent, knowledge, and absence of
mistake.
Moreover,
the
admission
of
the
evidence
was
not
excessively prejudicial because the evidence involved the same
type of conduct as the offenses charged in the indictment.
See
United States v. Boyd, 53 F.3d 631, 637 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding
no unfair prejudice when prior act is no more sensational or
disturbing
than
evidence
admitted
with which defendant was charged).
directly
supporting
crimes
Last, any danger of unfair
prejudice was minimized by the court’s limiting instructions.
See United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2005)
(“[A]ny
risk
of
such
prejudice
was
mitigated
by
a
limiting
instruction from the district court clarifying the issues for
which
the
jury
could
properly
consider
[the
Rule
404(b)]
evidence.”).
Because the district court properly considered and applied
the appropriate evidentiary standards, we conclude that it did
3
Appeal: 16-4475
not
Doc: 45
abuse
Filed: 02/09/2017
its
Accordingly,
we
discretion
affirm
Pg: 4 of 4
in
Imariagbe’s
admitting
the
convictions.
evidence.
We
dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?