UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4237
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT GLENN FORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00083-JBF-FBS-1)
Submitted: March 27, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Mallory Kent, THE LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MALLORY KENT,
Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United
States Attorney, Alan M. Salsbury, Melissa E. O’Boyle, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Glenn Ford appeals his convictions for
conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right and
extortion under color of official right, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), and making false statements, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2006). Ford argues that the district
court committed reversible error in permitting the Government to
introduce evidence of prior acts pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
404(b). We affirm.
We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for
abuse of discretion and will reverse only if the court “acted
arbitrarily or irrationally in admitting evidence.” United
States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302, 326 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Under this court’s long-standing
precedent, evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) when it is
relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s general
character, necessary, and reliable, and when the probative value
of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair
prejudice. United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 997 (4th Cir.
1997).
“A not-guilty plea puts one’s intent at issue and
thereby makes relevant evidence of similar prior crimes when
that evidence proves criminal intent.” United States v.
Sanchez, 118 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 1997). On appeal, Ford
2
does not fairly challenge the reliability or prejudicial effect
of the disputed evidence. Rather, he argues that the district
court relied on a legal fiction in concluding that his intent
was at issue in his trial. However, as the district court
correctly predicted, the defense’s cross-examination, as well as
Ford’s own testimony, placed his intent at issue by providing an
innocent explanation for his assistance and interaction with the
criminal defendants whom he is accused of extorting. Thus, we
conclude that the challenged testimony was both relevant and
necessary to establish Ford’s knowing and voluntary
participation in the charged conspiracy. * See Queen, 132 F.3d at
996-97; Sanchez, 118 F.3d at 196; see also United States v.
Yearwood, 518 F.3d 220, 225-26 (4th Cir. 2008) (elements of
conspiracy).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
To the extent Ford asks this court to replace our prior
precedent with a categorical rule prohibiting the use of Rule
404(b) evidence to prove general intent, we decline his
invitation. See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246
(4th Cir.) (“[A] panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly
or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this
court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 132
S. Ct. 356 (2011).
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4