Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04816/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04816-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nevyou Alemu
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4816

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NEVYOU ALEMU,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:15-cr-00033-IMK-MJA-3)

Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen D. Herndon, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. 

William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Zelda E. 

Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4816 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Nevyou Alemu appeals his conviction after a bench trial for 

conspiracy to possess stolen firearms and aiding and abetting 

the possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 2, 371, 922(j), 924(a)(2) (2012). Alemu’s only assertion on 

appeal is that the district court erred in refusing to admit 

into evidence a disc containing audio recordings of his related 

state court proceedings.

This Court reviews a district court’s evidentiary rulings 

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Medford, 661 F.3d 

746, 751 (4th Cir. 2011). Thus, we “afford[] the evidentiary 

ruling substantial deference, and will not overturn the ruling 

unless the decision was arbitrary and irrational.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record 

reveals no abuse of the district court’s discretion in excluding 

the evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

Appeal: 15-4816 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 2