United States v. Kalume
684 F. App'x 80
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Zubeda Kalume was convicted by a jury of marriage fraud under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c) and sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment (judgment affirmed).
- At trial the government relied on: Kalume’s 2011 statement admitting involvement in marriage fraud, documentary evidence from an immigration petition, and testimony from immigration officers.
- Kalume sought to admit an August 14, 2013 videotaped interview to show limited English proficiency (to undermine the 2011 admission); the district court excluded it under Rule 403 as minimally probative and potentially prejudicial.
- An immigration officer testified about her review and adverse recommendation on the couple’s petition; Kalume contended this constituted improper opinion testimony on the ultimate issue of marriage legitimacy.
- The jury sent a note seeking clarification on mens rea; the district court provided a supplemental instruction which Kalume later challenged on appeal.
- Kalume also challenged the substantive reasonableness of her 14‑month sentence on appeal; the government argued the sentencing claim was moot because her prison term had been completed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Kalume) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of 2013 videotape | Video was prejudicial to government and minimally probative; exclusion appropriate | Tape showed limited English proficiency and was admissible (non-hearsay) to impeach 2011 statement | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; tape probative value low, defendant could have feigned limited English, and evidence was cumulative |
| Immigration officer testimony | Helpful lay opinion based on direct review of petition and documents | Officer improperly opined on ultimate issue (legitimacy of marriage) | Affirmed — testimony admissible as lay opinion under Rules 701/704; not plain error |
| Response to jury note on mens rea | Court’s supplemental instruction made clear intent to evade law required beyond mere intent to be paid | Instruction improperly suggested intent to be paid alone sufficed | Waived on appeal (defense expressly assented); alternatively no plain error — charge read as a whole was correct |
| Sentencing reasonableness | Sentence within Guidelines range and justified by lack of remorse and other conduct | Sentence substantively unreasonable | No reversible error — claim moot due to service of imprisonment; even on merits sentence was within permissible range and not unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Daugerdas, 837 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Esdaille, 769 F.2d 104 (2d Cir. 1985) (upholding exclusion of voice exemplar due to ease of deliberate alteration and unfair prejudice)
- United States v. Gabinskaya, 829 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2016) (deference to trial court’s relevancy and prejudice assessments)
- United States v. Gupta, 747 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2014) (cumulative evidence can justify exclusion of additional proof)
- Cameron v. City of New York, 598 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (lay witness may give opinion on ultimate issue if helpful)
- United States v. Grinage, 390 F.3d 746 (2d Cir. 2004) (limits on opinion testimony suggesting results not in evidence)
- United States v. Lange, 834 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2016) (jury charge must be read as a whole for error analysis)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing sentence procedural and substantive reasonableness)