UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 99-4496
NAKITA D. AGYEMANG, a/k/a Nakita
Konadu Agyemang; SOLOMON
ADUSEI, a/k/a Kofi Danso,
Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-99-23-A)

Submitted: April 20, 2000

Decided: September 15, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joseph N. Bowman, Alexandria, Virginia; Michael W. Lieberman,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants. Helen F. Fahey, United States
Attorney, Kathleen M. Kahoe, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Nakita D. Agyemang appeals her conviction and sentence for con-
spiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994), and naturalization
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) (1994). Solomon Adusei
appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 (1994), aiding and abetting naturalization fraud in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 1425(a) (1994), and immigration fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1546(a) (West Supp. 2000). Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.

The Defendants raise two issues on appeal: (1) whether there was
sufficient evidence to sustain the Defendants' convictions and for
finding that they made material false statements to the INS; and (2)
whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing an INS
examiner to testify as a lay witness.

A reviewing court must uphold a jury's verdict if there is substan-
tial evidence to support it. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,
80 (1942). We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that sub-
stantial evidence supports the Defendants' convictions. We also find
that the false information submitted to the INS was clearly material
as it would have influenced the decisions of the INS. See Kungys v.
United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770-72 (1988); United States v. Puerta,
982 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 1992).

The Defendants also challenge their convictions on the ground that
the district court abused its discretion in allowing an INS examiner to
testify as a lay witness about the different INS forms, files, and proce-
dures used in the immigration context. We review a district court's
evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Pat-
terson, 150 F.3d 382, 387 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1086
(1999). Federal Rule of Evidence 701 governs the admission of lay

                     2
testimony and generally limits its scope to facts about which a witness
has personal knowledge. Lay opinion testimony is admissible where
it is "(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b)
helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the deter-
mination of a fact in issue." Fed. R. Evid. 701.

The record reveals that the INS examiner limited her testimony pri-
marily to facts within her personal knowledge, which she accumu-
lated in the course of her employment with the INS. Although the
examiner did express an opinion that the INS would deny an applica-
tion if an immigrant lied about certain important information, such as
her identify or number of children, we find that her testimony was
rationally based on her perceptions from her work at the INS. Further,
such testimony was helpful to the jury in understanding all of the
forms, policies, and procedures involved in an INS determination of
eligibility for immigration or naturalization. Accordingly, we find that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the INS
examiner to testify as a lay witness.

Accordingly, we affirm the Defendants' convictions and sentences.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
