United States v. Morozumi, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4211
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ANTONIO MOROZUMI, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00054-LHT-1)
Submitted: February 5, 2009 Decided: February 17, 2009
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID B. BETTS, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Jose Antonio Morozumi, Jr.,
was convicted of possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006).
The district court imposed a sentence of 235 months of
imprisonment. Morozumi challenges his conviction on the ground
that the district court erred in admitting evidence of other
acts of misconduct under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Finding no
error, we affirm.
The conduct charged in the indictment related to the
discovery of 50.1 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine
at Morozumi’s residence on May 8, 2007. The Government sought
to introduce evidence of prior uncharged criminal activity and
conduct to prove Morozumi’s intent and knowledge. This evidence
consisted of testimony regarding a controlled buy in which a
police informant purchased methamphetamine from Morozumi in
December of 2006; testimony of officers who stopped Morozumi in
April of 2007 and seized $18,000; and evidence of a prior arrest
in October of 2005 after which Morozumi admitted to officers
that he had been selling methamphetamine for about six months.
Morozumi moved to exclude the evidence under Rule 404(b) as
improper character evidence. The district court denied the
motion.
2
On appeal, Morozumi argues that the district court
erred in admitting the evidence of his prior bad acts. This
court reviews a district court’s determination of the
admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b) for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir.
1997). 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 citations omitted). Evidence of
other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove bad
character or criminal propensity but is “admissible for other
purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake
. . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); Queen, 132 F.3d at 994-95. Rule
404(b) is an inclusionary 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; United States v.
Rawle, 845 F.2d 1244, 1247 (4th Cir. 1988).
Evidence of prior acts is admissible if it is
“(1) relevant to an issue other than the general character of
the defendant; (2) necessary to prove an element of the charged
offense; and (3) reliable.” United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d
305, 312 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing Queen, 132 F.3d at 997).
Additionally, the probative value of the evidence must not be
3
substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Id.(citing Fed. R. Evid. 403).
Morozumi argues that the prior bad acts admitted in
this case were not relevant to an issue other than general
character and were not necessary to prove an element of the
offense. Considering the entirety of the evidence, however, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting the evidence.
We therefore affirm the judgment. 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
4