US v. Charles Imariagbe
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00105-ELH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency . [16-4475]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
January 31, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
A jury convicted Charles Imariagbe on 15 counts of aiding
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7602(2) (2012).
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
information on the charged tax returns.
Rule 404 generally prohibits evidence of other crimes or
accordance with his character.
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.”
v. Young, 248 F.3d 260, 271 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation
“To be admissible under Rule 404(b), evidence
necessary; and (3) reliable.”
United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d
306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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
admissible to show Imariagbe’s intent, knowledge, and absence of
excessively prejudicial because the evidence involved the same
type of conduct as the offenses charged in the indictment.
United States v. Boyd, 53 F.3d 631, 637 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding
no unfair prejudice when prior act is no more sensational or
with which defendant was charged).
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)
instruction from the district court clarifying the issues for
Because the district court properly considered and applied
the appropriate evidentiary standards, we conclude that it did
Pg: 4 of 4
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?