United States v. Suleiman Zakaria , 469 F. App'x 192 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4189
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SULEIMAN ZAKARIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00043-WDQ-1)
Submitted: February 8, 2012 Decided: March 15, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Staff
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Peter M. Nothstein,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Suleiman Zakaria appeals his 120-month sentence
following his jury conviction of one count of importation of
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) (2006), and one count
of possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). The convictions stemmed from
Zakaria’s apprehension following the discovery of heroin in his
suitcase upon his return to the United States from Ghana. On
appeal, Zakaria argues that the district court abused its
discretion in excluding the expert testimony of a psychologist
showing that Zakaria was of below-average intelligence, and that
such individuals are more reliant on others to complete everyday
tasks such as packing. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s exclusion of evidence
for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Myers, 589 F.3d
117, 123 (4th Cir. 2009). “A trial court’s exercise of such
discretion is entitled to substantial deference and will be
upheld so long as it is not arbitrary or irrational.” Id.(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In addition,
a district court’s evidentiary rulings are subject to review for
harmless error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52.
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 231 (4th Cir. 2008)
(“Evidence erroneously admitted will be deemed harmless if a
reviewing court is able to say, with fair assurance, . . . that
2
the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
We conclude that the district court’s ruling was not
arbitrary and irrational. Further, any error in excluding the
testimony in question was harmless. Notwithstanding Zakaria’s
able presentation of his defense through a witness who knew him
and testified to her knowledge of his limitations, the jury
found him guilty. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that
the jury’s verdict would not have been substantially affected by
the admission of the testimony. Accordingly, we affirm. 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