US v. George Ofori, No. 10-4464 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4464 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GEORGE KWABENA Albert Ofori, OFORI, a/k/a Stefan Lloyd Morally, a/k/a Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00515-TSE-1) Submitted: November 29, 2010 Decided: December 13, 2010 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin Kent, LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN KENT, Centreville, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Michael W. Gaches, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Kwabena Ofori appeals the judgment of conviction entered after he was found guilty of one count of falsely claiming to be a United States citizen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911 (2006), and one count of social security fraud, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (2006). He claims the district court erred by admitting evidence of prior bad acts. Finding no error, we affirm. Review admissibility of of a district evidence court s under Fed. determination R. Evid. 404(b) of the is for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir. 1997). In general, any evidence which tends to make the existence of a fact of consequence to an issue in the case more probable or less probable than without the evidence is relevant under Fed. R. Evid. admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402. 401 and therefore generally Evidence of other crimes is not admissible to prove bad character or criminal propensity. Rule 404(b). motive, Such evidence is admissible, however, to prove opportunity, intent, preparation, identity, or absence of mistake or accident[.] 132 F.3d at 994. plan, knowledge, Id.; see Queen, Rule 404(b) is an inclusive rule, allowing evidence of other crimes or acts except that which tends to prove only criminal disposition. See Queen, 132 F.3d at 994-95. 2 Evidence of prior acts is admissible under Rule 404(b) and Fed. R. Evid. 403 if the evidence is (1) relevant to an issue other than the general character of the defendant, (2) necessary, and (3) reliable, and (4) if the probative value of the evidence is prejudicial effect. not explaining prior and evidence of defendants. outweighed Queen, 132 F.3d at 997. instruction acts substantially the advance prior acts purpose notice for of provide its A limiting jury admitting the by intent additional evidence to of introduce protection to See id. We conclude that the evidence was relevant and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. affirm. legal before substantially Accordingly, we We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
