NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-3468

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ROBERT G. WRAY, a/k/a Robert Mac Wray, 

a/k/a Robert-George Wray, a/k/a Robert-George Wray of the Christ Clan

a/k/a Robert-George of the Wray Clan, a/k/a Robert Wray, a/k/a Robert George

 Robert G. Wray,

 Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. No. 2-14-cr-00504-001)

District Judge: Honorable Jeffrey L. Schmehl

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

November 4, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: November 4, 2016)

____________

OPINION*

____________

 

*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does 

not constitute binding precedent.
2

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Robert Wray appeals his judgment of conviction for wire fraud, bankruptcy fraud, 

failure to appear, and conspiracy to defraud the United States following a jury trial. Wray 

claims the District Court erred in admitting evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence. We will affirm. 

I

Wray’s conviction was brought about by his association with Dennis Fluck, a 

medical doctor who defaulted on loans he received from the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services in the 1980s. After obtaining a judgment against Fluck, HHS was 

unable to collect its debt for many years because it could not locate Fluck, who had 

changed his name to Dennis Erik Von Kiel. In 2007, HHS finally located Fluck and 

attempted to garnish his wages.

Soon after HHS filed a writ of garnishment in federal court indicating that “Von 

Kiel” owed $182,365.96, outside counsel to Fluck’s employer received a letter from 

“Robert mac Wray, Attorney-at-lawe” claiming that Fluck’s wages were being illegally 

garnished by the “United States Federal Corporation’s Justice Department” and that those 

wages actually belong “to the Church.” App. 199–202. Wray also filed dozens of 

documents in HHS’s federal civil suit against Fluck—all of which were signed by 

“Robert mac Wray” and many of which designated Wray as “attorney at lawe.” Though 
3

HHS prevailed in that case in April 2010, Fluck quickly filed for bankruptcy to stay all 

debt collection efforts. 

Wray’s efforts on behalf of Fluck continued as he filed numerous documents with 

the bankruptcy court and even listed himself as a co-plaintiff on one of Fluck’s claims. 

After the bankruptcy judge dismissed Wray from the proceedings, Wray changed his nom 

de plume from Robert mac Wray to “Robert: Wray” and continued filing fraudulent 

documents. One such document—the “Bill of Exchange”—stated: “Standing in Honor, I 

Robert, Trustee of the charged defendant remit to the Internal Revenue Service a Bill of 

Exchange in settlement of this Public debt, extinguishing it from the Public Record.” 

App. 503. 

During the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings, Wray also helped Fluck avoid

federal taxes. When Fluck was first hired by his employer in 2005, he indicated on IRS

forms that he was a “trust” exempt from federal taxes instead of an individual. As a result 

of this ruse, Fluck neither paid income taxes nor filed tax returns despite the fact that his 

annual wages often exceeded $200,000 between 2005 and 2013. Wray entered this 

scheme in 2011. The basic arrangement was this: Fluck told his employer to send his 

wages to a Utah bank account belonging to a sham religious entity for which Wray was 

the signatory, then Wray would transfer those same funds, minus a fee of some $240, 

back to an account in Pennsylvania belonging to a second sham religious entity for which 
4

Fluck was the sole trustee. Wray participated in this scheme from February 2011 until 

October 4, 2013. 

Wray was charged with wire fraud and bankruptcy fraud in 2014. Prior to trial, the 

Government filed a motion in limine expressing its intent to offer the testimony of Victor 

Balletta and Michael Reis pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The 

crux of the Government’s proffer was that Balletta would testify that Wray knew that 

Fluck was not paying taxes and Reis would testify that Wray had authored documents 

similar to those he had created for Fluck. Wray opposed their testimony as impermissible 

character evidence. The Government countered that the testimony would establish Wray’s 

knowledge, intent, modus operandi, and identity. After a hearing, the District Court 

granted the Government’s motion. Wray now appeals this decision.

II1

We review the District Court’s evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Caldwell, 760 F.3d 267, 274 (3d Cir. 2014).

Rule 404(b)(1) states that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not 

admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the 

person acted in accordance with the character.” But such evidence can be admitted “for 

another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, 

 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 because Wray 

was charged with federal crimes. We have jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. 
5

knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). 

And the evidence must be: “(1) offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b)(2); (2) 

relevant to that purpose; (3) sufficiently probative under the Rule 403 balancing 

requirement; and (4) accompanied by a limiting instruction, if requested.” United States v. 

Steiner, 815 F.3d 128, 135 (3d Cir. 2016). We shall apply these legal precepts to 

determine the admissibility of the trial testimony of Balletta and Reis.

A

Balletta testified that Fluck introduced him to Wray so that Wray could assist 

Balletta’s struggling business. Over the course of several phone conversations, Wray

advised Balletta about becoming a sovereign citizen, i.e., one who was allowed “legally 

not to pay income tax.” App. 616. Wray also told Balletta that Fluck was a sovereign 

citizen and “wasn’t paying any taxes.” Id. 

Wray argues that this testimony was not relevant to a material fact at issue. 

Specifically, he contends that “knowledge that [Fluck] was not paying taxes is not 

relevant to demonstrate that [Wray] participated and assisted [Fluck].” Wray Br. 14. Wray 

mistakenly conflates relevance with guilt. Although Balletta’s testimony does not prove 

Wray’s guilt, as the Advisory Committee has explained, “a brick is not a wall.” Fed. R. 

Evid. 401 (advisory committee notes); see also id. (explaining that evidence is relevant if 

it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable). Balletta’s 

testimony made it more likely that Wray knew of Fluck’s scheme to avoid taxes and 
6

assisted him. And it tended to weaken Wray’s claim that “he had no knowledge of the 

purpose of why [Fluck] had set up this two-step plan.” App. 48. Accordingly, Balletta’s 

testimony was relevant.

B

Reis testified that Wray helped him perform a “name restoration.” App. 630. 

According to Wray, if Reis changed his name from capital to lower-case letters and 

inserted a colon between his surname and given name, Reis would be “protecting [his] 

name from any lawsuits.” App. 631. In addition to Reis’s testimony, the Government 

introduced several documents Wray created to perform this “name restoration.” Those 

documents bore many of the same hallmarks as the “Bill of Exchange” and the other 

fraudulent documents submitted during Fluck’s bankruptcy proceeding. For example, 

both sets of documents included names separated by a colon (“Robert: Wray” and 

“Michael John: Reis”) and the peculiar misspelling of “lawe.” App. 633–34; Supp. App. 

240–41. 

Wray argues that because he did not perform these same “name restoration” 

services for Fluck, Reis’s testimony “did not make it more probable that [Wray] engaged 

in unlawful activities to assist [Fluck] in avoiding paying income taxes or filing false 

documents with the bankruptcy court.” Wray Br. 15. We disagree.

Wray’s argument ignores a key function of Reis’s testimony: proving Wray’s 

identity as the author of the “Bill of Exchange.” App. 49. Given the similarities between 
7

the documents, Reis’s testimony regarding Wray’s handiwork on the “name restoration” 

documents makes it more likely that Wray authored the “Bill of Exchange.” For that 

reason, Reis’s testimony was relevant. 

C

Having explained the relevance of Balletta’s and Reis’s testimony, we turn to Wray’s 

argument that it should have been excluded in any event. According to Wray, “any potential 

probative value of [the challenged testimony] was outweighed by its prejudicial effect under 

Rule 403.” Wray Br. 15. In support of this argument, Wraymerely rehashes his claim that the 

testimony was not relevant. We have already explained why that argument is incorrect. See 

supra Part (II)(A)–(B). Moreover, the District Court instructed the jurors as to the limited 

purposes for which they were to consider the evidence. See United States v. Gaev, 24 F.3d 

473, 478 (3d Cir. 1994) (explaining that we have in many cases found that “proper limiting 

instructions from the court cured the possible prejudice to the defendant” (citations omitted)). 

Without more, Wray falls far short of showing that the District Court abused its discretion

when it granted the Government’s motion in limine. 

* * *

For the reasons stated, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.