US v. Joseph Brunson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00615-MBS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998869519]. [11-4071, 11-4072, 11-4073]
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 1 of 26
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4071
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH BERNARD BRUNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-4072
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY MCQUEEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-4073
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 2 of 26
TONY B. POUGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge.
(3:08-cr-00615-MBS-1;
3:08-cr-00615-MBS-2;
3:08-cr00615-MBS-3;)
Argued:
March 22, 2012
Decided:
June 6, 2012
Before Sandra Day O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Retired), Supreme
Court of the United States, sitting by designation, TRAXLER,
Chief Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: William Michael Duncan, AUSTIN, & ROGERS, PA, Columbia,
South Carolina; Louis H. Lang, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina; Parks Nolan Small, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL
PUBLIC
DEFENDER,
Columbia,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellants.
Winston David Holliday, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
ON
BRIEF: William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Jeffrey
Mikell Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert F.
Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
2
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 3 of 26
PER CURIAM:
Joseph
(collectively
Brunson,
the
Timothy
Appellants)
McQueen,
operated
a
and
Ponzi
bilked investors out of more than $56,000,000.00.
Tony
Pough
scheme
that
Following a
jury trial, the Appellants were convicted of numerous offenses
arising from this scheme.
They raise three issues on appeal:
(1) whether the district court erred when it appointed full-time
counsel
over
their
respective
objections;
(2)
whether
the
district court erred in sentencing each of them to the low-end
of
their
respective
Guidelines
range;
and
(3)
whether
the
district court abused its discretion in keeping portions of a
related civil receivership case sealed until after the trial.
For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
I
From approximately September 2004 until August 2008,
the Appellants, who refer to themselves as the “Three Hebrew
Boys,”
operated
a
Ponzi
scheme
primarily
through
Capital
Consortium Group (CCG), a business entity created to facilitate
scheme. 1
the
CCG
offered
investors,
1
referred
to
as
“Three Hebrews Boys” is a reference to the Book of Daniel,
which contains the Old Testament story of Daniel’s three
friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who were ordered by
King Nebechadnezzar to be thrown into a fiery furnace. Daniel’s
friends survived the experience through their faith in God.
(Continued)
3
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
“constituents”
Filed: 06/06/2012
by
the
Pg: 4 of 26
Appellants,
thousands
of
investment
products, but the vast majority of these products related to
either
debt
elimination
or
high-yield
returns.
The
debt
elimination products marketed by CCG guaranteed to eliminate the
debt (e.g., mortgage, auto, credit card, or student loan) of the
purchaser of the product.
Typically, the purchaser agreed to
pay up-front a fraction of the debt and agreed to wait a period
of time before realizing any return on the investment.
For its
part, CCG agreed to eliminate the debt at the conclusion of this
waiting period.
The high-yield return products offered what amounted
to a fanciful return on the principal.
For example, the “Short-
Term Program” guaranteed that the investor would earn 10% per
month on his or her principal until the end of the year at which
time the investor was returned the principal.
charged
up-front
for
this
program.
The
A 5% fee was
“Long-Term
Program”
allowed investors to invest any amount, and, after ninety-one
business days, they received 10% of their principal every month
for the rest of their lives.
for
this
$100,000.00
program.
toward
The
four
A 5% fee was also charged up-front
“College
years
of
Tuition
college
Program”
tuition.
offered
The
fees
Like Daniel’s friends, the Appellants claim to have been thrown
into a fiery furnace and survived as well.
4
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 5 of 26
charged depended on what grade the student was in at the time
the money was invested.
For example, if the student was a
freshman in high school, for a $2,100.00 fee, the student would
receive $25,000.00 per year for four years of college.
Like
many
Ponzi
schemes,
exceptionally high rates of return.
early
investors
received
Such returns, of course,
were not generated by the success of the investment products,
but rather through the contributions of new investors or from
earlier investors who continued to invest their money.
In fact,
very little of the money received by CCG was invested at all. 2
Instead, the Appellants used the money for their personal use,
to buy, among other things, real estate, a $1,000,000.00 RV, a
Gulfstream
jet,
luxury
cars,
other luxury personal items.
football
stadium
skyboxes,
and
The actual loss generated by the
scheme was approximately $56,000,000.00.
Unfortunately, the individuals the Appellants targeted
to invest in their fraudulent investment programs were church
members,
their
families,
and
friends,
members, their families, and friends. 3
and
military
service
Investment seminars were
2
Potential investors were told that CCG used “sweep
accounts” to deposit money in foreign exchange markets, which,
in turn, would yield extraordinarily high rates (sometimes in
the neighborhood of 200% to 500% per day) of return.
3
CCG held itself out as a “ministry” designed to free its
clients from the bondage of debt.
McQueen and Brunson both
(Continued)
5
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 6 of 26
often held in churches and homes, and secrecy was a touchstone
of the scheme--investors were required to sign a nondisclosure
agreement which subjected them to a $1,000,000.00 fine if they
disclosed the contents of the program.
Over 7,000 individuals
were victimized by the actions of the Appellants, with an actual
loss in excess of $56,000,000.00.
In
South
August
Carolina
2006,
began
state
to
law
enforcement
investigate
CCG
officers
after
in
receiving
information from the North Carolina Secretary of State’s office
concerning a complaint filed with that office challenging the
business practices of CCG.
was
executed
at
CCG’s
In June 2007, a state search warrant
offices
in
Columbia,
South
Carolina.
During the search, a thumb drive was seized which contained a
spreadsheet
investors.
listing
the
names
and
addresses
of
over
7,000
The spreadsheet showed that these investors invested
over $82,000,000.00 in approximately 14,000 CCG programs.
On August 1, 2007, the government filed a sealed, ex
parte motion for a preindictment restraining order to prevent
the Appellants from disposing of assets related to CCG and to
appoint a receiver who would identify and preserve CCG-related
assets
while
following
the
day,
investigation
the
district
into
court
CCG
was
entered
pending.
a
The
sealed
order
received honorable discharges from the United States Army.
6
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
granting
district
the
Filed: 06/06/2012
government’s
court
Pg: 7 of 26
motion.
converted
the
On
August
restraining
31,
2007,
order
into
the
a
preliminary injunction.
On September 5, 2007, the district court entered an
order outlining the receiver’s duties, as well as listing the
Appellants’ responsibilities concerning their cooperation with
the receiver.
Among other things, the order specified that the
Appellants were to deliver property, monies, books, and records
upon the receiver’s demand and were to take no action, directly
or indirectly, to hinder, obstruct, or otherwise interfere with
the receiver in the conduct of his duties or with the custody,
possession, management, or control by the receiver of the funds,
assets, or premises involved in the case.
On
May
27,
2008,
a
criminal
complaint
against
the
Appellants was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina.
On June 20, 2008, a federal grand
jury in the District of South Carolina returned an indictment
charging the Appellants with one count of conspiracy to commit
mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1349 (Count One) and
thirty-five substantive counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1341 and 2 (Counts Two to Thirty-Six).
The indictment also
included a number of criminal forfeiture counts.
On
August
21,
2008,
the
grand
jury
returned
a
superseding indictment against the Appellants which added ten
7
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 8 of 26
counts of transporting stolen funds in interstate commerce under
18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2 (Counts Thirty-Seven to Forty-Six) and
twelve counts of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2
(Counts Forty-Seven to Fifty-Eight).
Prior
court
to
released
trial
certain
in
the
criminal
deposition
receivership case to the Appellants.
case,
the
transcripts
district
in
the
On October 28 and November
2, 2009, McQueen and Pough filed motions to unseal the remainder
of the receivership case.
A jury trial began on November 10, 2009 and concluded
on November 20, 2009.
all counts.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on
The jury also returned an $82,000,000.00 forfeiture
verdict against the Appellants.
On November 29, 2009, the district court granted in
part and denied in part the motions to unseal the remainder of
the receivership case.
In its order, the district court ruled
that certain documents generated “for the court’s eyes only” and
those “concern[ing] grand jury matters” would remain sealed.
The
district
court
conducted
sentencing hearing on December 14, 2010.
the
Appellants’
By a judgment entered
on January 14, 2011, the district court sentenced Pough to a
total
of
McQueen
360
each
months’
to
a
imprisonment
total
of
324
and
months’
Appellants filed timely notices of appeal.
8
sentenced
Brunson
imprisonment.
and
The
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 9 of 26
II
The principal claim raised by the Appellants concerns
the district court’s decision appointing full-time counsel in
January
2009
over
their
objections.
According
to
the
Appellants, this decision violated their Sixth Amendment right
to counsel.
Before turning to the relevant law concerning this
claim, we set forth the relevant facts.
A
On June 3, 2008, at the Appellants’ detention hearing
in
the
criminal
provisionally
case,
United
the
appointed
a
same
States
three
Magistrate
attorneys
represented the Appellants in the receivership case.
attorney
judge
status
relieved
conference
on
provisionally
June
23,
appointed
2008,
counsel
the
Judge
who
had
During an
magistrate
based
on
the
Appellants’ indication that they wanted to proceed pro se.
On July 21, 2008, the government filed a motion for
the
district
court
to
appoint
standby
counsel
to
assist
the
Appellants.
On July 29 and 30, 2008, prior to a hearing on the
government’s
motion,
pro se motions.
the
Appellants
filed
several
nonsensical
These motions were styled as a “Motion to
Dismiss [Pursuant to] F.R.C.P. 12,” a “Third-Party Complaint in
Rem,” a “Notice and Demand Without Dishonor for Discovery by
Interrogatory for the Record,” and a “Demand to Quash Due to
9
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 10 of 26
Assuming Facts Not in Evidence, Falsification of the Record,
Withholding Exculpatory Evidence, and Denial of Due Process &
Fraud.”
In
various
these
voluminous
nonsensical
and
filings,
frivolous
jurisdiction of the district court.
the
Appellants
claims
raised
attacking
the
For example, the Appellants
claimed that the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina “is a privately owned Commercial Corporation”
and that the United States is a “501C3 NON PROFIT OR RELIGIOUS
CORPORATION or CHARITABLE TRUST.”
they
were
“Corporate
payment
of
entitled
Surety
gift
to
full
Bonds”
and
payment
that
estate
The Appellants insisted that
and
the
the
government
taxes.
The
surrender
owed
of
for
non-
Appellants
also
contended that they were “Civilly Dead under the Doctrine of
Mortmain or Deadhand as designated in French.” 4
On August 11, 2008, the magistrate judge conducted a
hearing on the government’s motion to appoint standby counsel
for the Appellants.
refused
case.
to
During this hearing, the Appellants each
acknowledge
that
they
were
the
defendants
in
the
When addressed by the magistrate judge, Brunson asked for
4
Mortmain, French for “deadhand,”
that is held “in perpetuity by an
corporation.”
Black’s Law Dictionary
mortmain statute typically is designed
from holding land in perpetuity. Id.
10
generally refers to land
ecclesiastical or other
1035 (8th ed. 1999).
A
to prevent such entities
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 11 of 26
clarification whether the magistrate judge was addressing the
“defendant
or
.
.
the
live,
breathing
man,
Joseph
Brunson.”
Brunson claimed that he was appearing by “special visitation,”
as a “third party intervenor,” and/or as a “cross plaintiff.”
McQueen
and
Pough
made
similar
nonsensical
claims.
At
the
conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate judge appointed the
Appellants’
three
previous
attorneys
as
standby
counsel
and
informed the Appellants that they could “take advantage of their
abilities and skills and knowledge or not.”
On August 18, 2008, the district court held a hearing
on
various
motions
filed
by
the
Appellants.
The
Appellants
again announced that they were not the defendants and were not
under
the
district
court’s
jurisdiction,
arguing
that
the
indictment had been filed against a corporation spelled in all
capital letters whereas they spelled their names in upper-case
and lower-case letters.
offer
argument
in
When invited by the district court to
support
of
their
recited a litany of nonsensical claims.
motions,
the
Appellants
Based on these claims,
the district court advised the Appellants to retain counsel or
to take advantage of the services of their appointed counsel.
The district court then denied the Appellants’ motions.
On
August
22,
2008,
a
day
after
the
superseding
indictment was returned, the Appellants filed additional pro se
motions to quash the indictment, again arguing that the district
11
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
court lacked jurisdiction.
Pg: 12 of 26
The same day, the Appellants filed a
pro se notice of appeal from the district court’s denial of
their motions on August 18, 2008.
On February 24, 2009, we
dismissed this interlocutory appeal.
On
September
26,
2008,
the
Appellants
another pro se motion in the district court.
titled
“Ex
Parte
For
Declaratory
Judgment
filed
yet
In the motion,
and
Relief,”
the
Appellants indicated that they were sovereigns not subject to
the district court’s jurisdiction.
On January 5, 2009, the government filed a motion to
have
standby
counsel
appointed
three of the Appellants.
the
Appellants’
district
court
January
29,
2009.
a
full-time
counsel
for
all
In the motion, the government outlined
disruptive
held
as
and
hearing
At
obstructive
on
the
conduct.
the
government’s
hearing,
Brunson
acknowledge that he was a defendant in the case.
The
motion
refused
on
to
Instead, he
claimed that he was the “attorney in fact for the defendant
Joseph
Bernard
Brunson,”
Bernard Brunson.”
appointed
by
the
defendant
“Joseph
For his part, McQueen claimed the criminal
case was “settled and closed” and that he was not there as a
defendant in the criminal case, but rather wished to proceed
“sui juris” on behalf of the defendant Timothy McQueen named in
12
Appeal: 11-4071
the
Doc: 107
indictment. 5
McQueen.
granted
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 13 of 26
Pough
similar
took
a
approach
to
that
of
At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court
the
government’s
motion,
opining
that
the
Appellants
engaged in disruptive and obstructive conduct necessitating the
appointment of full-time counsel.
In so ruling, the district
court left the door open for the Appellants to secure substitute
counsel, if they decided to retain counsel on their own.
Unhappy
Appellants,
with
shortly
the
thereafter,
appointing full-time counsel.
on May 7, 2009.
district
moved
court’s
to
ruling,
rescind
the
the
order
A hearing on this motion was held
At the hearing, the district court observed
that a trial could not proceed without the appointment of fulltime counsel because the Appellants refused to acknowledge they
were the defendants named in the indictment.
Along a similar
vein, the district court observed that the trial could not move
forward because the Appellants would not even acknowledge who
was “talking” to the district court.
At the conclusion of the
hearing, the district court denied the motion, relying, again,
on the Appellants’ disruptive and obstructive behavior.
On October 27, 2009, the Appellants began to flood the
district court with another barrage of pro se filings.
5
These
“Sui juris” means in his “own right,” Black’s Law
Dictionary 1475 (8th ed. 1999) and is usually applied in a civil
context to denote that a party is of full age and capacity.
Cain v. Vontz, 703 F.2d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 1983).
13
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
included
Filed: 06/06/2012
motions
Administrative
termination
for
“Abatement
Proceeding
of
to
appointed
Forgiveness.”
The
Pg: 14 of 26
of
Proceeding
Settle
Matter,”
counsel,
district
and
court
notices
“Request[s]
conducted
conference the same day as these filings.
Pending
a
of
for
pretrial
Brunson claimed that
he was appearing as “Joseph Brunson, intervenor, here in the
matter for Joseph Brunson the defendant.”
Brunson also claimed
that he was appearing as intervenor “to assist the parties to
settle
all
claims
and
charges
outstanding
to
this
matter.”
Brunson also refused to come to the podium unless the district
court
acknowledged
that
he
was
“Joseph
Brunson,
intervenor.”
Like Brunson, McQueen and Pough claimed to appear at the hearing
as
“intervenors.”
Like
many
times
before,
the
Appellants
continued to press frivolous and nonsensical arguments.
also
insisted
counsel
and
that
settle
they
the
wanted
case
to
dismiss
their
“administratively.”
They
appointed
When
the
district court advised the Appellants that they needed to talk
with their appointed counsel if they were interested in plea
negotiations,
the
Appellants
stated
that
they
“would
conditionally accept [the] offer if [counsel was willing] to
accept all liability.”
The district court denied all of the
Appellants’ frivolous motions, as well as the request to relieve
appointed counsel.
14
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
The
Appellants’
Pg: 15 of 26
disruptive
continued all the way to the trial.
and
obstructive
conduct
During a hearing on the day
of jury selection, Brunson repeatedly pressed nonsensical and
frivolous arguments, arguing that he was not a defendant in the
case and that the district court did not have jurisdiction.
At
one point during yet another challenge to the district court’s
jurisdiction, the district court observed that Brunson was “out
of
order.”
McQueen
and
Pough
joined
these
arguments,
which
ultimately were rejected by the district court.
B
The
Sixth
Amendment
guarantees
a
criminal
defendant
the right to “the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
U.S.
Const. amend. VI.
This right guarantees criminal defendants the
right
counsel
to
trial
representation.
(1975).
The
Faretta
right
of
and
v.
also
the
California,
right
422
self-representation
to
U.S.
self-
806,
generally
must
835
be
honored even if the district court believes that the defendant
would benefit from the advice of counsel.
The
absolute.”
“[T]he
trial
right
to
Indiana
v.
judge
may
Id. at 834.
self-representation,
Edwards,
554
terminate
U.S.
however,
164,
“is
171
self-representation
not
(2008).
by
a
defendant who deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist
misconduct.”
Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n.46.
15
“The right of
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 16 of 26
self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the
courtroom” or “a license not to comply with relevant rules of
procedural and substantive law.”
Id.; see also
United States
v. Frazier–El, 204 F.3d 553, 560 (4th Cir. 2000) (“The right [to
self-representation] does not exist . . . to be used as a tactic
for delay, for disruption, for distortion of the system, or for
manipulation of the trial process.”).
In
grounds
to
this
revoke
case,
the
the
Appellants’
full-time counsel for them.
receivership
case
as
district
well),
pro
court
se
had
status
sufficient
and
appoint
Throughout this case (and in the
the
Appellants
disrupted
the
proceedings, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the
district court to try the case without the appointment of fulltime counsel.
time
By the time the district court appointed full-
counsel
for
the
Appellants,
the
Appellants
had
filed
numerous nonsensical pro se motions, and the district court had
presided
forth
over
such
numerous
nonsensical
hearings
in
arguments.
which
From
the
Appellants
the
get-go,
put
the
Appellants refused to acknowledge that they were the defendants
named in the indictment, indicating instead that they were the
“intervenors.”
Under such circumstances, it was impossible for
the district court to conduct any type of meaningful dialogue
with
the
Appellants,
and,
without
such
dialogue,
impossible for the district court to try the case.
16
it
was
Moreover,
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 17 of 26
after the district court’s January 2009 ruling, the Appellants
gave the district court no indication that they were willing to
stop their disruptive and obstructive conduct.
At the hearing
on the day of jury selection, the Appellants continued to claim
they were not defendants in the case and that the district court
did
not
have
before
it,
jurisdiction.
the
district
In
sum,
court
under
certainly
the
circumstances
acted
within
its
discretion when it appointed full-time counsel to thwart the
Appellants’ ongoing manipulative effort to delay and disrupt the
criminal trial.
In
the
alternative
to
their
argument
that
the
circumstances in January 2009 did not justify the appointment of
full-time
required
counsel,
to
appointment
wait
of
argument.
the
Appellants
until
the
full-time
Numerous
suggest
beginning
counsel
courts
the
of
government
trial
motion.
We
understandably
to
make
reject
have
was
the
this
permitted
district courts to revoke a defendant’s pro se status prior to
trial.
United States v. Mabie, 663 F.3d 322, 329 (8th Cir.
2011) (upholding the pretrial revocation of a defendant’s pro se
status); United States v. Mosley, 607 F.3d 555, 558-59 (8th Cir.
2010) (same).
To hold otherwise flies in the face of common
sense.
By the time of trial, the government has incurred the
expense
of
etc.),
and
bringing
it
would
the
case
to
materially
17
trial
(securing
prejudice
the
witnesses,
government
to
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 18 of 26
require it to wait until the beginning of the trial to move for
the appointment of full-time counsel.
Moreover, requiring the
government to wait until the beginning of trial also places a
burden on the district court, which will in all likelihood have
to continue the trial to allow appointed counsel time to get
familiar with the case.
position
here
would
In short, embracing the Appellants’
permit
them,
and
similar
defendants,
to
distort the trial process in contravention to the admonition in
Frazier–El that the right of self-representation cannot be so
employed.
III
The
Appellants
also
challenge
the
district
court’s
decision to keep portions of the receivership case sealed during
their trial.
The Appellants do not allege that any particular
prejudice flowed from this district court action.
Rather, they
contend that the district court’s decision to keep portions of
the
receivership
case
sealed
during
the
trial
amounts
to
structural error requiring reversal.
In
support
of
their
structural
error
argument,
the
Appellants rely on Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991),
wherein
the
Court
noted
five
structural
errors
that
mandate
automatic reversal of a conviction: denial of counsel, trial by
a
biased
judge,
the
right
to
18
self-representation
at
trial,
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 19 of 26
exclusion by race from a grand jury, and denial of a public
trial.
The five “structural errors” listed in Fulminante, as
well as a few others that have since been recognized, mandate
automatic reversal because such errors “call into question the
very accuracy and reliability of the trial process.”
McGurk v.
Stenberg, 163 F.3d 470, 474 (8th Cir. 1998).
The Appellants recognize that the error they allege
“does
not
fit
jurisprudence.”
suggest
the
neatly
into
Appellants’
manner
in
which
Supreme
Br.
the
at
Court
46.
district
structural
error
Nevertheless,
they
court
handled
the
receivership case implicates their Sixth Amendment right to a
public trial.
According to the Appellants, because portions of
the receivership case remained sealed, their trial was not a
public trial.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right
to a public trial.
U.S. Const. amend. VI; Presley v. Georgia,
130 S. Ct. 721, 724 (2010); Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior
Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501, 511 (1984).
This right is premised
on the notion that “‘judges, lawyers, witnesses, and jurors will
perform their respective functions more responsibly in an open
court than in secret proceedings.’”
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S.
39, 46 n.4 (1984) (quoting Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 588
(1965) (Harlan, J., concurring)).
The right “is for the benefit
of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with
19
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 20 of 26
and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested
spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their
responsibility and to the importance of their functions.”
Id.
at 46 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270 (1948) (“The knowledge that
every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the
forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible
abuse of judicial power.”).
“The central aim of a criminal proceeding [is] to try
the accused fairly,” and the right to a public trial serves the
purpose of “ensuring that judge and prosecutor carry out their
duties
responsibly
.
.
.
,
encourag[ing]
forward[,] and discourag[ing] perjury.”
witnesses
to
come
Waller, 467 U.S. at 46.
Thus, “[t]he right to a public trial is not only to protect the
accused but to protect as much the public’s right to know what
goes on when men’s lives and liberty are at stake, for a secret
trial can result in favor to as well as unjust prosecution of a
defendant.”
Lewis v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 791, 792 (4th Cir. 1965).
Here,
trial.
undeniably,
the
Appellants
enjoyed
a
public
There is no allegation that the courtroom was closed for
any meaningful duration, thus, it remained open to the public,
ensuring that the trial was subject to contemporaneous review in
the court of public opinion.
Cf. Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at
509 (noting that trial closures are to be “rare and only for
20
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 21 of 26
cause shown that outweighs the value of openness”).
Moreover,
the fact that portions of the receivership case remained sealed
is of no moment.
The government did not use, at trial or at
sentencing, information contained in the receivership case or
information that was not previously disclosed to the Appellants.
Thus, the government’s evidence at trial was subject to scrutiny
through both cross-examination and assessment by the public at
large.
Cf. Waller, 467 U.S. at 46 (“[T]here can be little doubt
that the explicit Sixth Amendment right of the accused is no
less
protective
of
a
public
trial
than
the
Amendment right of the press and public.”).
implicit
First
Finally, from our
review of the record, it is clear that both the government and
the district court handled their respective duties fairly and
responsibly. 6
IV
The Appellants also challenge their sentences.
The
gist of their challenge is that the district court abused its
discretion when it refused to embrace their argument premised on
a policy disagreement with the Fraud Guideline.
6
The Appellants also argue that the district court violated
their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment when it
kept portions of the receivership case sealed during the course
of their trial.
We have reviewed this argument and find it to
be without merit.
21
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 22 of 26
A
Prior
to
sentencing,
a
presentence
report (PSR) was prepared for each appellant.
investigation
The Guidelines
calculations in the PSRs were similar in all material aspects,
except
for
the
Criminal
History
Category.
Pough’s
Criminal
History Category was II, while Brunson’s and McQueen’s was I.
The total offense level for each appellant was 41, calculated as
follows.
was
7,
The base offense for the substantive mail fraud counts
United
States
(USSG) § 2B1.1(a)(1). 7
Sentencing
Commission
Guidelines
Manual
Twenty-four levels were added because the
loss exceeded $50,000,000.00 but was less than $100,000,000.00,
id. 2B1.1(b)(1)(M).
Six levels were added because the offense
involved more than 250 victims, id. 2B1.1(b)(2)(C).
Two levels
were added because the offense involved sophisticated means, id.
2B1.1(b)(9)(C), and two levels were added for obstruction of
justice, id. 3C1.1.
At
based
on
According
a
to
sentencing,
policy
the
the
Appellants
disagreement
Appellants,
with
Guideline
7
pressed
the
Fraud
an
sentences
argument
Guideline.
for
fraud
All of the counts of conviction were grouped pursuant to
USSG § 3D1.2(c), which deals with groups of closely-related
counts, because all of these counts were indeed closely related.
According to USSG § 3D1.3(a), when counts are grouped pursuant
to USSG § 3D1.2(a) through (c), the highest offense level of the
counts in the group is used. Here, the counts relating to mail
fraud produced the highest offense level and, therefore, were
used for total offense level calculation purposes.
22
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
offenses
empirical
are
Filed: 06/06/2012
too
high,
data,
and
are
have
Pg: 23 of 26
not
based
been
on
past
increasingly
sentencing courts in high-loss fraud cases.
practice
rejected
or
by
The Appellants also
suggested that the Fraud Guideline has an excessive number of
enhancements,
many
of
which
are
overlapping
and
duplicative.
The district court filed a detailed sentencing memorandum for
each appellant explaining why, after consideration of the 18
U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)
factors,
a
sentence
Guidelines range was appropriate.
at
the
low-end
of
the
In particular, the district
court rejected the Appellants’ argument resting on their policy
disagreement
with
the
Fraud
Guideline,
holding
that
the
circumstances of each case did not warrant a sentence outside of
the Guidelines range.
press
their
On appeal, the Appellants continue to
policy-based
arguments
rejected
by
the
district
court below.
B
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying the
abuse of discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
This review requires consideration of both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Id.
We assess whether the district court properly calculated the
advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), analyzed any arguments presented by the
23
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 24 of 26
parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence.
Id.
at 49–50; United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575–76 (4th Cir.
2010).
If
substantive
totality
there
is
no
reasonableness
of
the
procedural
of
the
circumstances
to
error,
sentence,
see
we
review
the
“examin[ing]
the
whether
the
sentencing
court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it
chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).”
United
States v. Mendoza–Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010).
If
the
sentence
is
within
the
presumption of reasonableness.
Guidelines
range,
we
apply
a
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 346–56 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for
within-Guidelines sentence).
In this case, the sentences imposed by the district
court are both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
respect
to
each
appellant,
the
district
court
With
properly
calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the factors
set
forth
presented
in
by
18
the
U.S.C.
§
parties,
3553(a),
and
analyzed
sufficiently
any
arguments
explained
selected sentence in detailed sentencing memorandums.
the
Moreover,
the totality of the circumstances demonstrate that the chosen
sentences
satisfied
the
standards
in
18
U.S.C.
§
3553(a).
Finally, with respect to the policy disagreement raised by the
Appellants, while it is true that a district court may vary from
Guidelines
ranges
based
solely
24
on
policy
considerations,
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 25 of 26
including disagreements with the Guidelines, Kimbrough v. United
States, 552 U.S. 85, 101 (2007), it is equally true that a
district court is not required to do so.
See United States v.
Munjak, 669 F.3d 906, 907 (8th Cir. 2012) (“That a district
judge now may be permitted to deviate from the guidelines based
on
a
policy
disagreement
with
the
Sentencing
Commission,
however, does not mean that the judge is required to do so.”);
United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“[D]istrict courts are not obligated to vary from the child
pornography Guidelines on policy grounds if they do not have, in
fact,
a
policy
disagreement
Mondragon-Santiago,
564
F.3d
with
them.”);
357,
367
United
(5th
Cir.
States
2009)
v.
(“In
appropriate cases, district courts certainly may disagree with
the
Guidelines
accordingly.
decisions
for
policy
reasons
and
may
adjust
a
sentence
But if they do not, we will not second-guess their
under
a
more
lenient
standard
simply
because
the
particular Guideline is not empirically-based.”); United States
v. Wilken, 498 F.3d 1160, 1172 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that “a
sentence
district
is
court’s
[G]uideline
underlying
not
range
a
rendered
refusal
based
particular
on
unreasonable
to
deviate
disagreements
Guideline
within
its
discretion
when
25
because
from
the
with
provision.”)
internal quotation marks omitted).
acted
merely
the
of
a
advisory
policies
(citation
and
Here, the district court
it
declined
to
embrace
the
Appeal: 11-4071
Doc: 107
Filed: 06/06/2012
Pg: 26 of 26
policy disagreements raised by the Appellants.
V
For the reasons stated herein, the judgments of the
district court are affirmed.
AFFIRMED
26
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?