United States v. Alaran , 231 F. App'x 291 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4729
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FESTUS AWONISE ALARAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis III, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00050-TSE)
Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: July 5, 2007
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John O. Iweanoge II, THE IWEANOGES’ FIRM, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Michael J.
Frank, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Festus Awonise Alaran was convicted for using or
attempting to use a non-immigrant visa for entry into the United
States knowing the visa to have been procured by means of any false
claim or statement or to have been otherwise procured by fraud, or
unlawfully obtained, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1546(a) (West
Supp. 2007) (hereinafter “visa fraud”). Alaran was sentenced to
time served, which was five months of imprisonment. On appeal, he
argues that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to show he knew
the visa at issue was fraudulent, and (2) the district court erred
by declining his instruction on “mistake of fact.” For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
First, viewing the evidence as required, Glasser v.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), we find that there was
sufficient evidence of Alaran’s mens rea or “guilty knowledge”
regarding the falsity of his visa. See United States v. Oloyede,
982 F.2d 133, 137 (4th Cir. 1992) (discussing guilty knowledge
element); Bland v. United States, 299 F.2d 105, 108 (5th Cir. 1962)
(same). Second, we do not find that the district court abused its
discretion in denying Alaran’s proposed instruction on “mistake of
fact.” United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 384 (4th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, we affirm Alaran’s conviction for visa
fraud. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -