UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4651
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MAHENDRA SHAH, a/k/a Mike Shah,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CR-02-560)
Submitted: April 12, 2006 Decided: May 5, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarke F. Ahlers, CLARK F. AHLERS, P.C., Columbia, Maryland,
Michael D. Montemarano, MICHAEL D. MONTEMARANO, P.A., Elkridge,
Maryland, Joseph Murtha, MILLER, MURTHA & PSORAS, L.L.C.,
Lutherville, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Barbara S. Sale, James G. Warwick, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mahendra Shah appeals his convictions and 180-month
sentence imposed for eight counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1341 (2000); one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1343 (2000); two counts of arson, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 844(i),(h) (2000); four counts of engaging in a money
transaction in criminally derived property, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1957(a) (2000); and one count of use of a fire to commit
a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(h) (2000). Finding no
error, we affirm.
Shah asserts the district court abused its discretion
when it admitted evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) of Shah’s
involvement in a 1996 fire, an event for which Shah filed no
insurance claim, and therefore was purportedly inadmissible to
prove a plan to defraud his insurance company. Evidence of prior
acts is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and Fed. R. Evid. 403
if the evidence is: (1) relevant to an issue other than the
general character of the defendant, (2) necessary, (3) reliable,
and (4) if the probative value of the evidence is not substantially
outweighed by its prejudicial effect. United States v. Queen, 132
F.3d 991, 997 (4th Cir. 1997). The evidence at issue here, the
1996 fire, was critical to establish Shah’s plan to defraud, and
satisfies the criteria enumerated in Queen. We therefore find the
- 2 -
district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this
evidence.
Shah next alleges the evidence was insufficient to
support his convictions. A jury’s verdict must be upheld on appeal
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). Substantial evidence is defined as “that evidence
which ‘a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333
(4th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). We review both direct and
circumstantial evidence and permit “the government the benefit of
all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to
be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021
(4th Cir. 1982). Construing all inferences in favor of the
Government, we find the evidence against Shah was abundant.
Shah finally argues that his statutorily-mandated
sentence violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Shah contends that his sentence should be remanded as Booker vests
sentencing discretion in the trial court and causes the factors in
18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005) to trump all
mandatory statutes. This argument lacks merit. See United States
v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 456 n* (4th Cir. 2006) (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 3553(e) (2000)); United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862
- 3 -
(4th Cir. 2005) (acknowledging, in the context of determining
whether a sentence is reasonable, that “[t]he statutory limits for
both maximum and minimum sentences must be honored except as
statute otherwise authorizes”).
We therefore affirm Shah’s convictions and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -