Court Opinion

ID: 991518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:38:22.810275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:28.957824
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                       No. 96-4254

GREGORY A. SCROGGINS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CR-95-299-S)

Submitted: February 13, 1997

Decided: February 28, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Edwin R. Burkhardt, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Barbara S. Sale, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Gregory A. Scroggins appeals his conviction for conspiracy to
engage in money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C.§§ 371,
1956(a)(3) (1994). We affirm.

In March 1994, Scroggins met with an undercover agent of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation who was posing as a Washington,
D.C., drug dealer. The agent represented to Scroggins that he wanted
to invest in a business through which he could launder the proceeds
of narcotics trafficking. During the meetings between Scroggins and
the agent, several tape recordings were made. These recorded conver-
sations contained numerous references by Scroggins to his past nar-
cotics trafficking activities, associations with drug dealers, and assets.
The Government admitted edited versions of these tapes into evidence
at trial. Scroggins asserts that the admission of this evidence was prej-
udicial and improper under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403.

Scroggins did not move for the exclusion of the tape recorded con-
versations or object to their admission into evidence under Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b) or 403, so we review only for plain error. Olano v.
United States, 507 U.S. 725, 734-36; United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d
87 (4th Cir. 1996).* Evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) when
it is relevant to an issue other than character, it is necessary to show
an essential part of the crime, and is reliable. United States v. Rawle,
845 F.2d 1244, 1247 (4th Cir. 1988). The record shows that the acts
described on the tapes were not used solely to show bad character, but
rather, to show that Scroggins was aware that the federal agent
wanted to launder drug proceeds. Thus, the taped conversations were
relevant and necessary to show an essential element of the crime of
money laundering--knowledge. See 18 U.S.C.A. 1956(a)(3)(B). For
these reasons, and because Scroggins fails to show that the probative
value of his taped statements were outweighed by any prejudicial
_________________________________________________________________
*Although Scroggins did object to the completeness of the tapes, the
record reveals that the Government admitted an unedited tape as a joint
exhibit.

                     2
effect, we find no plain error. Consequently, we affirm Scroggins'
conviction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3