Court Opinion

ID: 999642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:28:49.130407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:34.201223
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                       No. 98-4844
JANE DOE, a/k/a Heather Ohen
Damoah, a/k/a Adwoa Oforiwaa
Ntiamoah,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CR-98-312)

Submitted: August 17, 1999

Decided: September 7, 1999

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Declan C. Leonard, MARTIN, ARIF, PETROVICH & WALSH,
Springfield, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States
Attorney, David J. Goldstone, Special Assistant United States Attor-
ney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jane Doe, a/k/a Heather Ohene Damoah, a/k/a Adwoa Oforiwaa
Ntiamoah,1 appeals the district court judgment convicting her of one
count of fraud and misuse of immigration documents in violation of
18 U.S.C.A. § 1546(a) (West Supp. 1999). Doe contends that: (1) the
evidence was insufficient to establish that she committed fraud by
stating that a lottery petition was hers and by submitting documents
supporting her assertion that she was the person named in the lottery
petition; (2) the district court erred by refusing to ask prospective
jurors voir dire questions regarding their attitudes towards this coun-
try's immigration policies; and (3) the district court erred by failing
to dismiss the indictment based on the Government's failure to com-
ply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.2 Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.

A guilty verdict must be upheld "if there is substantial evidence,
taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it."
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Here, there was evi-
dence that Doe tried to assume the identity of a person named Heather
Ohene Damoah who submitted a Diversity Visa lottery petition to the
National Visa Center in New Hampshire. A forensic expert testified
that the both the photograph and the signature on the petition proba-
bly did not belong to Doe. While under oath, Doe could not recall
pertinent details regarding the petition, despite stating that she pre-
pared the petition and submitted it. Furthermore, there was evidence
that Doe, who was known as Adwoa Oforiwaa Ntiamoah, acquired
_________________________________________________________________
1 It appears from the evidence that Damoah's middle name is spelled
"Ohene."
2 Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires
an arresting government to inform without delay a foreign national who
has been arrested of her right to contact her consul without delay.

                    2
identification documents purporting to identify her as Heather Ohene
Damoah shortly before an interview at the Immigration and Natural-
ization Service regarding adjusting her status. Giving the Government
the benefit of all reasonable inferences, see United States v. Tresvant,
677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982), we find that there was sufficient
evidence that Doe submitted documents to the INS containing mate-
rial false statements.

We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Doe's request to ask prospective jurors about their attitudes
towards this country's immigration policies. See United States v.
Lancaster, 96 F.3d 734, 738 (4th Cir. 1996). This was not an issue
that was "inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial."
Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 189 (1981) (internal
quotation omitted).

Finally, we agree with the district court that Doe had the burden of
establishing that she was prejudiced by the Government's failure to
notify her of her rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations and that Doe did not establish prejudice. See
United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 170 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.
1999).

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3