Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kofi OPOKU-AGYEMANG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-05
Citations: 553 F. App'x 95
Docket Number: No. 11-5273-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kofi OPOKU-AGYEMANG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, SUSAN L. CARNEY and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kofi OPOKU-AGYEMANG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-5273-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 5, 2014.
Rajit S. Dosanjh, Assistant United States Attorney, for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY, for Appellee.
Steven Yurowitz, Newman & Greenberg, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, SUSAN L. CARNEY and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant Kofi Opoku-Agyemang ("Opoku") timely appeals his conviction and subsequent sentence on charges of possession of a stolen access device (here, credit card numbers) with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) and (b)(1), and possession of images of United States currency with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 474(a) and 481.
Opoku challenges his conviction and sentence on numerous grounds. Specifically, Opoku argues that (1) the District Court erred by admitting evidence of his prior conviction; (2) his waiver of his right to counsel was not "knowing and intelligent"; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on Count Two; (4) the District Court erred when it denied him a continuance to consult an expert and limiting his cross-examination of Government witnesses; (5) Opoku was not competent to represent himself at sentencing; and (6) his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
We have reviewed the record and considered all of Opoku's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court entered December 16, 2011.