United States v. Anes Subasic ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4683
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANES SUBASIC, a/k/a Mladen Subasic,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00216-FL-3)
Submitted: April 7, 2014 Decided: April 25, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Federal juries convicted Anes Subasic of conspiracy to
provide material support to terrorist groups, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 2339A (West Supp. 2013); conspiracy to murder, maim,
or kidnap others, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956(a) (2012);
procuring naturalized citizenship by providing false
information, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) (2012); and
providing false information on an application for an immigration
benefit, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a). The district
court sentenced Subasic to a total of 360 months of imprisonment
and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Subasic challenges the district court’s
admission of foreign records of his prior criminal charges and
convictions at his immigration trial, arguing that the records
were not properly authenticated and that the admission of a
record of a conviction obtained in Subasic’s absence violated
Fed. R. Evid. 403. “We review evidentiary rulings of the
district court for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Caro,
597 F.3d 608, 633 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs only when “the
[district] court acted arbitrarily or irrationally in admitting
evidence.” United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 732 (4th
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2
The proponent of an item of evidence must satisfy the
requirement of authenticating or identifying that item of
evidence by “produc[ing] evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed.
R. Evid. 901(a); see also United States v. Branch, 970 F.2d
1368, 1370 (4th Cir. 1992). “The burden to authenticate under
Rule 901 is not high — only a prima facie showing is required.”
United States v. Vidacak, 553 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). With regard to
public documents, examples of evidence that satisfy this
requirement include evidence that a document was recorded or
filed in a public office or a record is from the office where
items of its kind are kept. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(7).
In addition, a district court should exclude relevant
evidence when “its probative value is ‘substantially outweighed’
by the potential for undue prejudice, confusion, delay or
redundancy.” United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 994 (4th
Cir. 1997) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 403). “Prejudice, as used in
Rule 403, refers to evidence that has an ‘undue tendency to
suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not
necessarily, an emotional one.’” Id. (citations omitted). We
have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
foreign records at Subasic’s trial on the immigration charges.
3
Subasic also challenges the district court’s order
qualifying the Government’s witness Evan Kohlmann as an expert
in various aspects of Islamic extremism and allowing his
testimony at Subasic’s trial for the terrorism charges. We
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in
qualifying Kohlmann as an expert and admitting his testimony
regarding extremism. See United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104,
131 (4th Cir. 2014) (finding no abuse of discretion in order
qualifying Kohlmann as expert and allowing his testimony at the
trial of Subasic’s codefendants).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court and deny Subasic’s motion for copies of his special
administrative measures. 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