2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-21-2011

USA v. George Oyakhire

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4492

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. George Oyakhire" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1062.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1062
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 10-4492

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

GEORGE OYAKHIRE, 

Also known as OLIVER OYAKHIRE

GEORGE OYAKHIRE,

Appellant.

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-09-cr-00658-001)

District Judge: Hon. Stewart Dalzell

__________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 20, 2011

Before: HARDIMAN and ALIDSERT, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Int’l Trade Judge.

(Filed: June 21, 2011)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.

 

* Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, 

sitting by designation.
2

This appeal by George Oyakhire, a.k.a. “Oliver Oyakhire,” requires us to decide 

whether the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1) committed plain 

error by instructing the jury that George’s use of the alias “Oliver” could support an 

inference of consciousness of guilt, and (2) abused its discretion by admitting into 

evidence a summary exhibit of events selected from Oyakhire’s alien files. We decide 

that there was no plain error in the jury instruction and the Court did not exceed its 

permissible discretion in admitting the exhibit. We will affirm.1

I.

Because we write for the parties who are familiar with the facts and the District 

Court proceedings, we limit our discussion to explain only our reasoning.

In October 2009, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted

George Oyakhire and Leatha Taylor on one count of conspiracy to falsely assume or 

pretend to be an employee of the Social Security Administration, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 371; one count of false personation of an officer or employee of the United 

States, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 912; and two counts of making false statements to 

government officials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Oyakhire was also charged with 

one count of making false statements in an application for a United States passport, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. Taylor pleaded guilty to the charges against her. Oyakhire

proceeded to trial, a jury found him guilty on all charges, and the District Court sentenced 

him to 16 months’ imprisonment. 

 

1

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3

II.

Oyakhire contends that the District Court erroneously instructed the jury that his 

use of a false name could support an inference of consciousness of guilt, and that this 

error mandates a new trial. Because he did not object to the Court’s instruction, we 

review it for plain error. E.g., United States v. Lee, 612 F.3d 170, 191 (3d Cir. 2010). An 

instructional error constitutes plain error if: “(1) the error is fundamental and highly 

prejudicial or if the instructions are such that the jury is without adequate guidance on a 

fundamental question and (2) our failure to consider the error would result in a 

miscarriage of justice.” Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep’t, 635 F.3d 606, 612 (3d Cir. 

2011) (quotations, modification, and citation omitted).

Throughout the trial, the government presented evidence that George Oyakhire 

used the name “Oliver Oyakhire” to conceal his identity and to fraudulently obtain legal 

resident status and ultimately citizenship. He challenges the following jury instruction:

There has been evidence that the defendant may have used a false name. If 

you find that the defendant knowingly used a name other than his own in 

order to conceal his identity and to avoid identification, you may, but are 

not required to, infer that this shows consciousness of guilt on the part of 

the defendant. You may not, however, infer on the basis of this alone that 

the defendant is, in fact, guilty of a crime for which he is charged. Whether 

or not evidence of the use of a false name shows the defendant’s 

consciousness of guilt, and the significance, if any, to be attached to that 

evidence, are matters for you to determine. 

Oyakhire did not object to this instruction, and does not claim on appeal that it misstates 

the law. Rather, he argues that the District Court committed plain error when it instructed 

the jury on consciousness of guilt because the use of a false name is inherent in the 

crimes charged against him.
4

We have stated that a factfinder may infer consciousness of guilt from a 

defendant’s attempt to conceal his true identity by using an alias. See United States v. 

Levy, 865 F.2d 551, 558 (3d Cir. 1989) (“[T]he defendants’ attempt to conceal their true 

identities by providing aliases to the police upon arrest is relevant as consciousness of 

guilt.”). Oyakhire has not cited, nor has our research revealed, any legal support for his 

contention that this general precept does not apply where the crime charged involves the 

use of a false name. To succeed under plain error review, Oyakhire must show that “the 

error is clear under current law.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993);

United States v. Clark, 237 F.3d 293, 298-299 (3d Cir. 2001). He has failed to meet this 

exacting standard. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not commit plain 

error.

III.

Oyakhire also contends that the District Court exceeded its discretion by 

permitting the government to introduce at trial an exhibit summarizing information 

contained in the alien files of George Oyakhire and “Oliver Oyakhire.” We review a

district court’s decision regarding admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. See

United States v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758, 768 n.14 (3d Cir. 2000).

Rule 611(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides trial courts with 

“reasonable control over the mode . . . of . . . presenting evidence so as to . . . avoid 

needless consumption of time.” Courts have interpreted the rule to allow trial courts, 

within their discretion, to admit summary exhibits to “clarify and simplify complex 

testimony or other information and evidence.” United States v. Bray, 139 F.3d 1104, 
5

1111 (6th Cir. 1998). Summary charts admitted in this manner may be used to highlight 

points favorable to a party’s case, but they must be linked to evidence that previously has 

been admitted. United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390, 397-398 (1st Cir. 2006).

Oyakhire conceded at trial that the government’s exhibit summarized information that 

had been admitted properly into evidence. He has not claimed that any of the information 

in the exhibit was inaccurate, nor has he explained how he was prejudiced by the facts 

included in the chart. The summary was admissible under Rule 611(a). Accordingly, we 

hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the summary exhibit 

into evidence.

* * * * *

We have considered all contentions presented by the parties and conclude that no 

additional discussion is necessary. The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.