United States v. Rose-Marie Nsahlai, 121 F.4th 1052

Rose-Marie Nsahlai and her husband fraudulently applied for and obtained two PPP loans for their aerospace businesses based on fabricated payroll documentation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The companies at issue had no actual employees or payroll, and the documents used to support the loan applications were falsified using templates from a payroll processing firm.
After receiving approximately $2.5 million in PPP funds, the proceeds were used for personal, unauthorized purposes, including purchasing a new home.
Nsahlai was convicted on charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, and unlawful monetary transactions.
On appeal, she challenged the exclusion of evidence related to alleged domestic abuse and the jury instructions regarding conspiracy and unlawful monetary transaction charges.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court’s evidentiary or instructional rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of evidence of alleged domestic abuse	Evidence of Kindambu’s alleged abuse was relevant to negate mens rea or explain her conduct.	Evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; unrelated to guilt or the specific intent.	No abuse of discretion in excluding the evidence; any error would be harmless given the record.
Jury instruction on conspiracy and related counts	Instructions broadened the conspiracy charge scope beyond the indictment and confused the jury.	Instructions as a whole directed jury to correct elements; any inconsistency was harmless.	No plain error; jury instructions, taken in context, did not affect substantial rights or verdict.
Right to present a complete defense/testify	Evidentiary rulings infringed on her constitutional right to present a defense and testify.	Court permitted her to testify and explain her motivations, just not specifics about abuse.	No constitutional violation; rulings were within judge’s discretion and adequate explanation.
Sufficiency of notice from indictment (conspiracy)	Lack of notice due to discrepancy between indictment and jury instruction on scope of conspiracy conduct.	Elements and scope were adequately conveyed via instructions and verdict form.	No reversible error; verdict form and record confirm jury’s finding aligned with charged conduct.

United States v. Farrell, 921 F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 2019) (standard for reviewing abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Ferguson, 752 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard for harmless error in evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2009) (constitutional challenges regarding exclusion of evidence reviewed as evidentiary arguments)
United States v. Prince-Oyibo, 320 F.3d 494 (4th Cir. 2003) (scope of defendant’s right to present a defense)
United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975) (jury instructions must be considered in context of whole trial)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain error review and burden to show effect on substantial rights)