United States v. Ezeobi , 517 F. App'x 35 ( 2013 )

12-828-cr
United States v. Ezeobi
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,
2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 8th day of April, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER,
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY
8 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11
12
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14
15 Appellee,
16
17 -v.- No. 12-828-cr
18
19 CHIDI EZEOBI,
20
21 Defendant-Appellant.
22
23
24 FOR APPELLANT: JAMES M. BRANDEN, New York, NY.
25
26 FOR APPELLEES: CARRIE H. COHEN, Assistant United States
27 Attorney (Shane T. Stansbury, Brent S.
28 Wible, Assistant United States Attorneys,
29 on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United
30 States Attorney for the Southern District
31 of New York.
32
33
1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the
2 Southern District of New York (Cote, J.).
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
5 AND DECREED that the order is AFFIRMED.
6 Defendant-appellant Chidi Ezeobi appeals from a
7 February 16, 2012 judgment of conviction entered by the
8 United States District Court for the Southern District of
9 New York (Cote, J.) following a jury trial. We assume the
10 parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history
11 of the case.
12 Ezeobi argues that the district court’s admission of
13 evidence regarding his arrest at London’s Heathrow Airport
14 over two years after the offense of conviction was improper
15 under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). After careful
16 review, we find it unnecessary to determine whether the
17 district court erred by admitting this evidence because any
18 such error was harmless. “In the absence of a
19 constitutional violation, the erroneous admission of
20 evidence is subject to the harmless error test of Federal
21 Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a).” United States v.
22 Grinage, 390 F.3d 746, 751 (2d Cir. 2004). “A district
23 court’s erroneous admission of evidence is harmless if the
24 appellate court can conclude with fair assurance that the
2
1 evidence did not substantially influence the jury.” United
2 States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 164 (2d Cir. 2008)
3 (quotation marks omitted).
4 The government’s case included substantial evidence
5 against Ezeobi regarding the offense of conviction,
6 including testimony; phone, hotel, and bank records; and
7 physical evidence. In light of this, we cannot conclude
8 that the allegedly “erroneously admitted evidence [went] to
9 the heart of the case against the defendant” or that “the
10 other evidence against the defendant [was] weak.” See
11 Grinage, 390 F.3d at 751; see also United States v. Garcia,
12 413 F.3d 201, 217 (2d Cir. 2005) (evidentiary ruling was
13 harmless where it “had no substantial and injurious effect
14 or influence on the jury verdict.” (internal quotation marks
15 omitted)). The fact that the jury in Ezeobi’s case returned
16 a mixed verdict, failing to convict him on two of the
17 charged counts, further “demonstrates the jury was not
18 confused and could segregate the 404(b) evidence from other
19 evidence.” United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1205
20 (11th Cir. 2010).
21
22
3
1 We have considered all of Ezeobi’s arguments and find
2 them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, the
3 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
7
4