United States of America v. Robert Harold Scott, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4899
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT HAROLD SCOTT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00164-RGD-DEM-1)
Submitted: September 30, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2016
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Caroline S.
Platt, Appellate Attorney, Suzanne V. Katchmar, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Elizabeth M. Yusi, Jay
V. Prabhu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Harold Scott, Jr., appeals his conviction for
conspiracy to produce child pornography, production of child
pornography, receipt of child pornography, use of interstate
commerce facility to entice a minor to engage in sexual
activity, and destruction of records. On appeal, Scott contends
that the district court erred in admitting evidence of other
acts of misconduct pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Byers, 649 F.3d 197, 213 (4th
Cir. 2011). “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not
admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that
on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
character.” F ED . R. EVID. 404(b)(1). However, such evidence is
admissible to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.”
FED. R. E VID. 404(b)(2); see United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991,
994 (4th Cir. 1997). “Rule 404(b) is viewed as an inclusive
rule, admitting all evidence of other crimes or acts except that
which tends to prove only criminal disposition.” United States
v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted). “To be admissible under Rule 404(b), evidence
must be (1) relevant to an issue other than character; (2)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
necessary; and (3) reliable.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). The evidence’s prejudicial effect also must not
substantially outweigh its probative value. Byers, 649 F.3d at
206; see FED. R. EVID. 403.
In this case, the critical issue at trial was not whether
the alleged offenses had occurred, but whether Scott was the
individual who had committed them. To prove identity, the
Government sought to present evidence relating to Scott’s prior
state convictions for extortion, conspiracy, and larceny. The
pattern of conduct alleged at Scott’s trial was, in all material
respects, strikingly similar to the conduct that underlay his
state convictions. Consequently, the prior-act evidence was
highly probative of identity and thus admissible under Rule
404(b). See Queen, 132 F.3d at 996-97. Moreover, the district
court’s careful limiting instructions to the jury mitigated any
possibility of unfair prejudice. We therefore conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
evidence under Rule 404(b).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --