Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    United States v. Agyemang, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendants, Nakita D. Agyemang and Solomon Adusei, appealed their convictions for conspiracy and naturalization/immigration fraud. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding that: (1) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict; (2) the false information provided to INS was material; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing an INS examiner to testify as a lay witness about INS forms, files, and procedures.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Agyemang, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    31 views3 pages
    The defendants, Nakita D. Agyemang and Solomon Adusei, appealed their convictions for conspiracy and naturalization/immigration fraud. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding that: (1) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict; (2) the false information provided to INS was material; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing an INS examiner to testify as a lay witness about INS forms, files, and procedures.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-09-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-4496

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendants, Nakita D. Agyemang and Solomon Adusei, appealed their convictions for conspiracy and naturalization/immigration fraud. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding that: (1) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict; (2) the false information provided to INS was material; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing an INS examiner to testify as a lay witness about INS forms, files, and procedures.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    31 views3 pages

    United States v. Agyemang, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendants, Nakita D. Agyemang and Solomon Adusei, appealed their convictions for conspiracy and naturalization/immigration fraud. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding that: (1) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict; (2) the false information provided to INS was material; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing an INS examiner to testify as a lay witness about INS forms, files, and procedures.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    No. 99-4496
    NAKITA D. AGYEMANG, a/k/a Nakita
    Konadu Agyemang; SOLOMON
    ADUSEI, a/k/a Kofi Danso,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
    (CR-99-23-A)
    Submitted: April 20, 2000
    Decided: September 15, 2000
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Joseph N. Bowman, Alexandria, Virginia; Michael W. Lieberman,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants. Helen F. Fahey, United States
    Attorney, Kathleen M. Kahoe, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Nakita D. Agyemang appeals her conviction and sentence for conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (1994), and naturalization
    fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1425(a) (1994). Solomon Adusei
    appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy in violation of 18
    U.S.C. 371 (1994), aiding and abetting naturalization fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2 & 1425(a) (1994), and immigration fraud in
    violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 1546(a) (West Supp. 2000). Finding no
    reversible error, we affirm.
    The Defendants raise two issues on appeal: (1) whether there was
    sufficient evidence to sustain the Defendants' convictions and for
    finding that they made material false statements to the INS; and (2)
    whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing an INS
    examiner to testify as a lay witness.
    A reviewing court must uphold a jury's verdict if there is substantial evidence to support it. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,
    80 (1942). We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the Defendants' convictions. We also find
    that the false information submitted to the INS was clearly material
    as it would have influenced the decisions of the INS. See Kungys v.
    United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770-72 (1988); United States v. Puerta,
    982 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 1992).
    The Defendants also challenge their convictions on the ground that
    the district court abused its discretion in allowing an INS examiner to
    testify as a lay witness about the different INS forms, files, and procedures used in the immigration context. We review a district court's
    evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Patterson, 150 F.3d 382, 387 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1086
    (1999). Federal Rule of Evidence 701 governs the admission of lay
    2

    testimony and generally limits its scope to facts about which a witness
    has personal knowledge. Lay opinion testimony is admissible where
    it is "(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b)
    helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue." Fed. R. Evid. 701.
    The record reveals that the INS examiner limited her testimony primarily to facts within her personal knowledge, which she accumulated in the course of her employment with the INS. Although the
    examiner did express an opinion that the INS would deny an application if an immigrant lied about certain important information, such as
    her identify or number of children, we find that her testimony was
    rationally based on her perceptions from her work at the INS. Further,
    such testimony was helpful to the jury in understanding all of the
    forms, policies, and procedures involved in an INS determination of
    eligibility for immigration or naturalization. Accordingly, we find that
    the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the INS
    examiner to testify as a lay witness.
    Accordingly, we affirm the Defendants' convictions and sentences.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3

    You might also like