United States v. Linda Ashiegbu

MEMORANDUM * Appellant Linda Ashiegbu (Ashiegbu) challenges her conviction for making a false statement in an immigration document on behalf of her brother, Emmanuel Anyanwu (Anyanwu). 1.The district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Anyanwu’s alien registration file (A-fíle), as the A-fíle was admissible pursuant to the public records exception. See United States v. Estrada-Eliverio, 583 F.3d 669, 672-73 (9th Cir.2009). In any event, any error in admitting the A-fíle was harmless given the substantial evidence supporting Ashiegbu’s conviction. See United States v. Pintado-Isiordia, 448 F.3d 1155,1157 (9th Cir.2006). 2. The A-file was relevant to the false statement charge. See United States v. Noban, 574 F.3d 1065, 1075 (9th Cir.2009) (“Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”) (citation, parentheses and internal quotation marks omitted). 3. Because of the additional evidence of Ashiegbu’s motive in making the false statement, the admission of testimony regarding spousal preferences for citizenship applications “was harmless as it is more probable than not that the erroneous admission of the evidence did not affect the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Gallenar-do, 579 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir.2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 4. Allowing the government’s closing argument regarding the Federal Poverty Guidelines was not plain error. Given the substantial independent evidence of Ashi-egbu’s guilt, Ashiegbu “has not met and cannot meet the high burden of demonstrating a plain error that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United *771 States v. Trevino, 419 F.3d 896, 902 (9th Cir.2005), as amended (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 5. The government’s closing argument did not constructively amend the indictment, as “there was no complex of facts presented at trial distinctly different from those in the indictment.” United States v. Casch, 448 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir.2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). AFFIRMED. Footnotes [*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.