Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Adam ALBRETT, a/k/a Muhannah Almahmoudi, Defendant - Appellant.
Adam Albrett appeals his convictions for sending threatening interstate communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (2012). Albrett argues that the district court improperly denied his motion to proceed pro se, admitted prejudicial evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), and provided prejudicial supplemental jury instructions. We affirm for the following reasons.
First, as the Government notes, Albrett knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to represent himself, so that issue is not reviewable on appeal. United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 298-99 (4th Cir. 2014). Second, evidence of Albrett’s prior threatening communications was highly probative of Albrett’s intent, and the Government did not introduce substantive evidence of those communications. Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in admitting the challenged evidence. See United States v. Bell, 901 F.3d 455, 465 (4th Cir. 2018) (providing standard for admission of Rule 404(b) evidence), petition for cert. filed on other grounds, No. 19-39 (U.S. July 3, 2019); United States v. Garcia-Lagunas, 835 F.3d 479, 492 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review). Finally, the district court accurately presented the elements of the offense in its initial jury instructions, see United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 220-21 (4th Cir. 2016). The court did not err in clarifying only the element about which the jury had a question; “[a] trial court generally may limit a supplemental charge to the specific instruction requested by the jury,” United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 224 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 238, 202 L.Ed.2d 160 (2018).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s criminal 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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-4049
Decided: November 25, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)