United States of America v. WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS a/k/a Oscaro El Hari Bey William Oscar Harris

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-4115
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS
a/k/a Oscaro El Hari Bey
William Oscar Harris,
Appellant
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00354-1)
No. 04-4174
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ARTHUR THOMAS OUTTERBRIDGE,
a/k/a Arthor Tomas Ottobrice Bey
Arthur T. Outterbridge,
Appellant
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00354-4)
No. 04-4182
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
ROBERT MCCURDY,
a/k/a Al Ruberto Moor Core Dey
Robert McCurdy,
Appellant
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00354-5)
No. 04-4190
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
REGINALD M. WOOTEN
aka Noble R. Asanti Ali
Reginald M. Wooten,
Appellant
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00354-3)
No. 04-4281
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
REGINALD DAVID LUNDY
aka Noble R. Dauud Lundi El Bey
Reginald David Lundy,
Appellant
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00354-2)
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-- 2 of 5 --

3
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
District Judge: The Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 3, 2008
Before: BARRY, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: March 31, 2008 )
OPINION
PER CURIAM
On July 2, 2004, a jury found William Oscar Harris, Reginald Lundy, Reginald
Wooten, Arthur Outterbridge, and Robert McCurdy guilty on all counts of a twenty-three
count indictment charging each of them with one count of conspiracy to produce and pass
false and fictitious money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and multiple counts of
willfully, knowingly, and with intent to defraud, passing, issuing or transmitting false and
fictitious securities or other instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 514(1)(2) and 2.
Following sentencing, notices of appeal were filed. We have jurisdiction to review the
judgments of sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Appellants, in their joint brief, raise a host of issues on appeal. Rather than
paraphrase those issues, we will set them forth verbatim as they appear in the Table of
Contents of appellants’ brief:

-- 3 of 5 --

4
“POINT 1 THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING IN
EVIDENCE AN IRRELEVANT AND UNDULY
PREJUDICIAL INTERNAL MEMORANDUM BY A
MORTGAGE COMPANY THAT ALSO CONSTITUTED
INADMISSIBLE LAY OPINION TESTIMONY.
POINT 2 THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY ADMITTING AN
ANONYMOUS FAX SOLELY AGAINST DEFENDANT
LUNDY WHICH FAX WAS IRRELEVANT AND
UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL AS TO LUNDY’S CO-
DEFENDANTS.
POINT 3 THE DISTRICT COURT UNFAIRLY PREJUDICED THE
APPELLANTS WHEN IT BOLSTERED THE
GOVERNMENT EXPERTS’ CREDIBILITY BY TAKING
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DOCUMENTS ABOUT WHICH
THE EXPERTS HAD ALREADY TESTIFIED.
POINT 4 THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT TOOK
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE SUNDRY FREE MOORS
ACT OF 1790 AND THE MOORS FED FINANCIERS ACT
BECAUSE THE COURT HAD NO BASIS TO
DETERMINE THE ACCURACY OF THE JUDICIALLY
NOTICED FACTS.
POINT 5 THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY PRECLUDING
ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF CO-DEFENDANT
HARRIS’ OUT OF COURT STATEMENT TO ALINE
BENNETT TO TELL THE TRUTH DURING HER GRAND
JURY TESTIMONY.
POINT 6 THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY PERMITTING THE
EXPERT TESTIMONY OF GOVERNMENT WITNESS
KERR AS IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
GOVERNMENT’S INITIAL WRITTEN SUMMARY AS
REQUIRED BY RULE 16(a)(1)(G) AND WAS UNFAIRLY
PREJUDICIAL UNDER FED. R. EVID. 403.
POINT 7 THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT HELD
DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ATTACHED TO A

-- 4 of 5 --

5
CERTIFICATION WERE SELF-AUTHENTICATING
DESPITE NO REFERENCE TO THE DOCUMENTS
WITHIN THE CERTIFICATION.
POINT 8 APPELLANTS WERE NOT FOUND GUILTY BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
CONSTITUTING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
A. The Right to an Independent Tribunal is Fundamental
B. Distinguishing Civil versus Criminal Contempt
POINT 9 THE DEFENDANTS CONVICTIONS MUST BE
REVERSED BECAUSE THEY HAD A VALID GOOD
FAITH DEFENSE.”
We have reviewed the record and the submissions of the parties and conclude,
without further discussion, that each of the issues raised by appellants is without merit.
See, e.g., United States v. Gomez, 237 F.3d 238, 239 (3d Cir. 2000). We will, therefore,
affirm the judgments of sentence.

-- 5 of 5 --