Government's Notice Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and SDGA Local Rule 16.2 — USA v. Harun

Summary

In this notice filed on 08/08/22 as Document 32 in Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE in the Southern District of Georgia, the United States said it intends to introduce at trial evidence of other acts by Gladys Harun under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and SDGA Local Rule 16.2. The evidence covers her Paycheck Protection Program applications to Wells Fargo on or about April 17, 2020 and April 9, 2021 and to Truist Bank, and Economic Injury Disaster Loan applications she submitted on her own behalf. It also covers an application submitted in the name of a deceased individual and applications prepared under other people's names. The government says the evidence shows intent, plan, knowledge and lack of mistake, or is intrinsic to the charged wire fraud.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
DUBLIN DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
GLADYS HARUN 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
CASE NO. 3:23-CR-009 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE PURSUANT TO  
FED. R. EVID. 404(B) AND SDGA LOCAL RULE 16.2 
 
 
The United States gives notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) 
and SDGA Local Rule 16.2 of its intent to introduce in its case-in-chief evidence of 
certain crimes, wrongs, and other acts, as well as the circumstances and facts 
surrounding the crimes, wrongs, and other acts, of Defendant Gladys Harun. 
 
In particular, the United States intends to introduce evidence of Defendant’s 
false and fraudulent applications to lenders submitted as part of the Paycheck 
Protection Program (PPP), and to the SBA as part of the Economic Injury Disaster 
Loan (EIDL) program.  Such applications are described below in the Affidavit in 
Support of a Complaint.  See Doc. 3-1, 1:22-MJ-051.   
 
They include Defendant’s PPP applications to:  Wells Fargo on or about April 
17, 2020, id. ¶ 19; Truist Bank in or about April 2021, id. ¶ 20; and Wells Fargo on or 
about April 9, 2021, id. ¶ 21.  They also include EIDL applications numbered 
3305025780 and 3313902136 that Defendant submitted on her own behalf, id. ¶¶ 26–
27; EIDL application number 3321688919 that Defendant submitted in the name of 
a deceased individual with the initials L.G., id. ¶ 28; and the PPP and EIDL 
applications prepared under the names of J.B., J.N., C.H., and H.M., id. ¶¶ 35–42.       
Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE     Document 32     Filed 08/08/22     Page 1 of 3

2 
 
Records in the United States’ possession concerning the above-referenced 
applications were part of the United States’ initial discovery disclosure.  The United 
States will introduce the specified crimes, wrongs, and other act evidence in its case-
in-chief to show intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, lack of accident or mistake, and 
identity.  By pleading not guilty, Defendant has made intent a material issue.  United 
States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir.1998).  The government, therefore, 
“may prove [intent] by qualifying Rule 404(b) evidence absent affirmative steps by 
the defendant to remove intent as an issue.”  Id.  And Defendant’s “knowing 
commission” of other, similar crimes “logically bear on [her] knowledge” of the crimes 
charged in the indictment.  United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1281 (11th Cir. 
2003).  This is particularly true when the government seeks to introduce evidence of 
fraudulent activity not charged in an indictment alleging fraud.  See, e.g., United 
States v. White, 848 F. App’x 830, 841 (11th Cir. 2021) (upholding 404(b) admission 
of uncharged fraudulent activity where evidence showed how Defendant gained 
knowledge of fraudulent practice of overstating his business valuation he later used 
in charged conduct); United States v. Frediani, 790 F.3d 1196, 1202 (11th Cir. 2015) 
(finding the district court did not err in admitting evidence of six additional 
fraudulent uncharged contracts where such evidence was probative of intent since 
defendant “implied that he had only made a mistake”); United States v. Uptain, 552 
F.2d 1107, 1107–08 (5th Cir. 1977) (affirming admission of extrinsic fraud evidence 
where it showed “knowledge, intent, and a consistent pattern and scheme of 
operation”). 
Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE     Document 32     Filed 08/08/22     Page 2 of 3

3 
 
Alternatively, the United States contends that such evidence is intrinsic 
evidence that does not fall within Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), since evidence of 
Defendant’s false pandemic fraud submissions to obtain money arose out of the same 
series of transactions as the charged wire fraud offense, is necessary to complete the 
story of the crime, and is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the 
charged offense.  See United States v. Troya, 733 F.3d 1125, 1131 (11th Cir. 2013). 
 
Respectfully submitted, this 8th day of August 2022.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DAVID H. ESTES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
/s/ Chris Howard                      . 
Chris Howard 
Assistant United States Attorney 
N.Y. Bar. No. 4935938 
Post Office Box 8970 
Savannah, Georgia 31412 
Telephone Number: 912-652-4422 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:22-cr-00009-DHB-BKE     Document 32     Filed 08/08/22     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.87462.32.0.pdf

Size

88,621 bytes

SHA-256

20293727f511986675c46cd788a71bfdea55b9330cd96d56b9ab10425ae9c887

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.87462.32.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)