Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of bank fraud conspiracy and two counts of aggravated identity theft. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of bank fraud conspiracy; the district court did not err in failing to conduct an in camera review to determine whether material required disclosure under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500(b), or pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); the district court did not err by declining to provide defendant's requested jury instruction on accomplice testimony, and by providing the jury with a written copy of the jury instruction on aiding and abetting liability; the district court did not erroneously apply a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, a ten-level sentencing enhancement based on the amount of loss, a two-level sentencing enhancement based on use of sophisticated means, a three-level sentencing enhancement based on his role in the offense as a manager or supervisor; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring part of defendant's sentences to run consecutively. View "United States v. Savage" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of bank fraud conspiracy and two counts of aggravated identity theft. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of bank fraud conspiracy; the district court did not err in failing to conduct an in camera review to determine whether material required disclosure under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500(b), or pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); the district court did not err by declining to provide defendant's requested jury instruction on accomplice testimony, and by providing the jury with a written copy of the jury instruction on aiding and abetting liability; the district court did not erroneously apply a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, a ten-level sentencing enhancement based on the amount of loss, a two-level sentencing enhancement based on use of sophisticated means, a three-level sentencing enhancement based on his role in the offense as a manager or supervisor; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring part of defendant's sentences to run consecutively. View "United States v. Savage" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendants' conviction of health care fraud and conspiracy to engage in health care fraud. Assuming that the district court did err in failing to consider materiality expressly when assessing guilt, the court held that such error was harmless because the record conclusively established that insurers would not have paid for the second, more sophisticated tests had they known those tests were not medically necessary and no rational fact finder could conclude otherwise. Furthermore, Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, — U.S. —, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016), did not compel a different conclusion. The court rejected defendants' remaining arguments, concluding that each lacked merit. View "United States v. Palin" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution calculation, determination of loss for purposes of sentencing, and denial of defendant's motion for recusal. In this case, defendant was convicted of orchestrating a scheme to defraud mortgage companies. The court held that the evidence supported the district court's restitution calculation; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the loss amount where it used the correct loss figure in sentencing defendant under the advisory Guidelines; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in its determination not to recuse where the district court's ownership of stock in some of the victim lenders did not require recusal. View "United States v. Stone" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for three counts stemming from a mortgage fraud conspiracy occurring between 2005 and 2007. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's three motions for a new trial; the court rejected defendant's challenges to the district court's denial of his motion to compel the government to produce approximately 99 short sale files discovered during a separate and unrelated grand jury investigation; the district court acted within its considerable discretion by admitting testimony from a government's expert witness on mortgage banking practices; there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of materiality where any reasonable juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence in the record, that false representations made in the documents connected to the real estate transactions at issue would have been of critical importance to the lenders; the district court did not commit reversible error in its application of an enhancement for a loss amount of $7.1 million; and the district court did not err in applying a three-level enhancement for a manager's or supervisor's role, a two-level sophisticated-means enhancement, and a two level enhancement for abuse of a position of trust. View "United States v. Wolf" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that there was insufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy and government program theft. The court vacated these convictions and remanded for resentencing. However, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant of honest services fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and making false statements to federal agencies. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court constructively amended the original indictment because the district court did not broaden the bases for defendant's conviction. Therefore, the court affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Pinson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order of restitution that was imposed after defendant was convicted of making a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the federal government in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). The Fourth Circuit affirmed and held that it was evident in this case that the district court ordered restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Rights Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663; the categorical approach has no role to play in determining whether a Title 18 offense is "an offense against property" that triggers mandatory restitution under the MVRA; given the specific circumstances of defendant's section 1001 conviction, the court had little trouble finding that his false statement on the HUD-1 form was an "offense against property" under the MVRA; and the district court did not err when it determined that defendant's false statement directly and proximately caused harm to Bank of America and thus the Bank was the "victim" within the meaning of the MVRA. The court also held that the district court did not err in awarding restitution to the Bank in the amount of $1,385,444.83. View "United States v. Ritchie" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of numerous charges stemming from her submission of fraudulent immigration and tax filings, concluding that the district court correctly admitted evidence obtained following a search of defendant's home pursuant to a validly issued warrant. In this case, the seizure of over $41,000 in cash did not exceed the scope of the warrant where the warrant and supporting affidavit made clear that investigators were authorized to seize evidence of perjury and marriage or immigration fraud during their search, and the seizure of the cash did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Defendant's contention that the government failed to meet its burden of proving the tax and wire fraud charges against defendant beyond a reasonable doubt lacked merit because defendant's argument misunderstands the nature of the government's charges and the evidence presented against her at trial. View "United States v. Kimble" on Justia Law

Social security survivors' benefits are a thing of value of the United States that can support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 641. Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the Fourth Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported defendant's conviction for theft of government property beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the jury could reasonably infer from two denied benefits applications that defendant had a motive to file under a different benefits program to again attempt to obtain benefits to which he was not entitled. Finally, the district court's trial management was reasonable and far from an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kiza" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiring to commit immigration fraud, and aiding and abetting fraud and misuse of immigration documents. The court concluded that there was no error in excluding the testimony of a witness that defendant argued was material and favorable to the defense; the court need not address the issue of whether bad faith was an element of a compulsory process claim because defendant failed to establish prejudice; and, to the extent that defendant styled his argument as a due process claim, the court likewise rejected it. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an email listing the names of customers who still wanted to obtain a green card over defendants Federal Rule of Evidence 901 objection; on the record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the April 24th email as a witness's statement, rather than hearsay from the translator; and the court rejected defendant's argument that the district court improperly interfered with his presentation of a defense by repeatedly interrupting counsel's questions to witnesses and interfering with counsel's closing argument to the jury, essentially taking on the role of a prosecutor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kaixiang Zhu" on Justia Law