US v. Stephen Field

Filing

UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00105-RAJ-DEM-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999596742].. [13-4711, 13-4818, 13-4863]

Appeal: 13-4711

Doc: 205

Filed: 06/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 10

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4711

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN G. FIELDS,
Defendant – Appellant.

No. 13-4818

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TROY BRANDON WOODARD,
Defendant – Appellant.

No. 13-4863

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.

Appeal: 13-4711

Doc: 205

Filed: 06/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 10

EDWARD J. WOODARD,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge.
(2:12-cr-00105-RAJ-DEM-3; 2:12-cr-00105-RAJ-DEM-4; 2:12cr-00105-RAJ-DEM-1)

Argued:

May 13, 2015

Decided:

June 5, 2015

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Shedd wrote the opinion,
in which Judge Motz and Judge Diaz joined.

ARGUED: Eugene Victor Gorokhov, BURNHAM & GOROKHOV, PLLC,
Washington, D.C.; Andrew Michael Sacks, SACKS & SACKS, Norfolk,
Virginia; James Brian Donnelly, J. BRIAN DONNELLY, P.C.,
Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellants. Katherine Lee Martin,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Ziran Zhang, BURNHAM & GOROKHOV, PLLC,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant Stephen G. Fields. Dana J.
Boente, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Melissa E.
O'Boyle, Uzo E. Asonye, Assistant United States Attorneys,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-4711

Doc: 205

Filed: 06/05/2015

Pg: 3 of 10

SHEDD, Circuit Judge:
In this appeal, Stephen G. Fields, Edward J. Woodard, and
Troy Brandon Woodard raise a host of evidentiary and procedural
challenges to their convictions following a ten week jury trial
for conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
challenges his sentence.

Troy Brandon Woodard also

For the reasons that follow, we affirm

the convictions and sentence.

I.
The Bank of the Commonwealth (“the Bank”) was a community
bank with branches throughout southeastern Virginia and coastal
North Carolina.
its

longtime

Fields

was

Officer.

Appellant Edward Woodard (“Woodard”) served as

Chief

its

Executive

Executive

Appellant

Troy

Officer,

Vice

and

President

Brandon

Appellant

and

Woodard

Stephen

Commercial

Loan

(“Brandon”)

was

Woodard’s son and a Vice President of the Bank’s wholly-owned
mortgage loan subsidiary.

The Bank failed in 2008, and the

FDIC, serving as the Bank’s receiver, sustained approximately
$333 million in losses.
On December 20, 2012, a federal grand jury returned a 26count

indictment

charging

Woodard,

Fields,

Brandon,

and

two

additional defendants, who are not parties to this appeal, with
a massive bank fraud conspiracy and various financial crimes
arising therefrom.

The indictment alleged that the objectives
3

Appeal: 13-4711

Doc: 205

Filed: 06/05/2015

Pg: 4 of 10

of the conspiracy were to hide the true financial condition of
the Bank and to benefit the conspirators at the Bank’s expense.
The trial began on March 19, 2013 and lasted approximately
ten weeks.

The government called 48 witnesses and entered over

600 exhibits into evidence.

The defendants called 44 witnesses

and entered over 400 exhibits.

All five defendants testified on

their own behalf.
After

deliberating

for

four

days,

guilty verdict against the Appellants.

the

jury

returned

a

Woodard was convicted of

conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349; making a
false entry in a bank record under 18 U.S.C. § 1005; four counts
of unlawful participation in a loan under 18 U.S.C. § 1005; two
counts of making a false statement to a financial institution
under 18 U.S.C. § 1014; two counts of misapplication of bank
funds under 18 U.S.C. § 656; and bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §
1344.

Fields was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud

under 18 U.S.C. § 1349; two counts of making a false entry in a
bank record under 18 U.S.C. § 1005; making a false statement to
a financial institution under 18 U.S.C. § 1014; and two counts
of misapplication of bank funds under 18 U.S.C. § 656.

Brandon

was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1349 and three counts of unlawful participation in a loan
under 18 U.S.C. § 1005.

4

Appeal: 13-4711

Doc: 205

Filed: 06/05/2015

Pg: 5 of 10

The district court sentenced Woodard to a 276 month term of
imprisonment, Fields to a 204 month term of imprisonment, and
Brandon to a 96 month term of imprisonment.
ordered

restitution

payments.

All

three

The court also
defendants

timely

appealed their convictions to this Court.
On

appeal,

Fields

challenges

the

district

court’s

time

limitation of his direct testimony, its exclusion of certain
defense

evidence

as

hearsay,

its

limitation

of

the

scope

of

cross-examination of two prosecution witnesses, its decision to
allow another prosecution witness to testify as a lay witness
rather than as an expert, and its exclusion of certain defense
evidence as irrelevant.
the

evidence

against

Woodard challenges the sufficiency of

him,

certain

evidence

regarding

federal

Troubled

Asset

district

court’s

effect

of

the

of

national

finances and operations.

district

the

Relief

exclusion

2008

the

Bank’s

court’s
failure

exclusion
to

Program

(TARP)

certain

evidence

financial

crisis

apply

funds,

of
for

and

the

regarding

the

on

the

Bank’s

Brandon challenges the sufficiency of

the evidence against him as well, his sentence enhancement based
on the court’s calculation of the amount of loss that he caused
the Bank, and his sentence enhancement for abusing a position of
trust.

5

Appeal: 13-4711

Doc: 205

Filed: 06/05/2015

Pg: 6 of 10

II.
We

first

committed
direct

examine

reversible

limit

testimony.
the

error
We

duration

discretion.

Fields’
by

review

of

a

claim

that

limiting
a

the

the

district

witness’s

district

duration

court’s

testimony

court

of

decision

for

abuse

his
to
of

United States v. Midgett, 488 F.3d 288, 297 (4th

Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Turner, 198 F.3d 425, 429
(4th Cir. 1999)).

Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a) provides that

“[t]he court should exercise reasonable control over the mode
... of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1)
make those procedures effective for determining the truth [and]
(2) avoid wasting time... .”

“It is well settled ... that a

trial court possesses broad discretion to control the mode of
interrogation

of

witnesses,”

including

the

time

placed on the interrogation of that witness.
at

299-300.

“A

restrictions’

district

on

a

court

defendant’s

thus

may

ability

limitations

Midgett, 488 F.3d
impose

to

‘reasonable

present

relevant

evidence” so long as those restrictions are not “‘arbitrary or
disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.’”
United

States

v.

Woods,

710

F.3d

195,

200

(4th

Cir.

2013)

(quoting United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998) and
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55-56 (1987)).
Here,
Fields’

the

direct

court

notified

examination

began
6

Fields’
that

counsel
the

court

well

before

intended

to

Appeal: 13-4711

“move

Doc: 205

it

Filed: 06/05/2015

along”

through

each

Pg: 7 of 10

defendant’s

case.

J.A.

6489.

Fields’ counsel began his direct examination in the afternoon,
and upon adjourning for the evening, the court indicated that
counsel would be expected to finish the following morning.

Once

counsel

that

failed

to

finish

the

direct

examination

within

timeframe, the court alerted him that he would be expected to
finish

that

adjournment
additional

afternoon.
that

time

day
for

Ultimately,

until
the

6:40pm

direct

to

the
allow

examination.

court

delayed

Fields’

counsel

Throughout

the

examination, the court warned counsel repeatedly that he was
straying

into

irrelevant

or

marginally

relevant

lines

of

questioning.
Fields’ counsel took four days to present his case, despite
his initial estimate that the case would take two to three days.
Fields’ direct examination lasted seven and one-half hours and
was the longest direct examination of any witness in the case.
In response to counsel’s objection that he had had insufficient
time

to

address

each

challenged

transaction

during

direct

examination, the court noted that Fields was charged with fewer
counts than two of his codefendants, both of whom had testified
for

a

shorter

amount

of

time.

Finally,

although

the

court

emphasized the wide latitude that Fields’ counsel had to inquire
into transactions on redirect that he had not addressed during

7

Appeal: 13-4711

Doc: 205

Filed: 06/05/2015

Pg: 8 of 10

the direct examination, Fields’ counsel declined to make use of
the entire time allotted for redirect.
In light of the court’s repeated warnings and extensions of
time

during

greater
relative

Fields’

amount
to

of

his

direct

time

testimony,

that

Fields

codefendants,

we

and

had

to

conclude

in

light

present
that

of
his

the

the
case

district

court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the duration of
Fields’ direct testimony.

III.
We next examine Woodard’s and Brandon’s claims that the
evidence supporting their convictions for conspiracy to commit
bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 is insufficient. 1
court

may

set

aside

the

jury’s

verdict

on

“A reviewing

the

ground

of

insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of fact could
have agreed with the jury.”

Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S.Ct. 2, 4

(2011) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)).

“The

jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the credibility of the
evidence and resolves any conflicts in the evidence presented,
and

if

the

interpretations,

evidence

supports

the

decides

jury

1

different,
which

reasonable

interpretation

to

The elements of conspiracy to commit bank fraud are, in
relevant part, conspiring to execute a scheme to defraud a
financial institution. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349.

8

Appeal: 13-4711

Doc: 205

believe.”

Filed: 06/05/2015

Pg: 9 of 10

United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir.

1994) (internal citations omitted).
The government presented abundant evidence in support of
Woodard’s

charge

testimony

of

Woodard’s

conviction.

Bank,

of

conspiracy

Eric

testified

Menden

at

to

alone

Menden,

trial

is

a

that

commit

bank

fraud.

sufficient

longtime

Woodard

had

to

The

support

borrower

from

the

informed

him

that

Woodard’s son Brandon was having difficulty making payments on
one

of

Brandon’s

properties.

Menden

testified

that

Woodard

asked Menden to give Brandon money to make these payments, that
Menden

did

Brandon

so,

from

and

the

that

Bank.

Menden
This

obtained
money,

the

money

Menden

to

believe

this

testimony

–

as,

gave

testified,

delivered to Brandon in cash in a brown paper bag.
chose

he

indeed,

was

If the jury
drawing

all

inferences in the light most favorable to the government, we
must

assume

sufficient

to

it

did

–

sustain

commit bank fraud.

then

this

Woodard’s

testimony

conviction

alone

for

would

be

conspiracy

to

We therefore affirm his conviction on this

count.
There is also sufficient evidence against Brandon on the
conspiracy
general

charge.

contractor

To
who

take

one

remodeled

example,
the

Kevin

Bank’s

Glenn,

Suffolk

the

branch,

testified that Brandon was present when his father, Woodard,
instructed Glenn to “wrap ... up” certain costs of the remodel
9

Appeal: 13-4711

Doc: 205

Filed: 06/05/2015

Pg: 10 of 10

of Brandon’s personal residence into the invoices that the Bank
was paying for the remodel of its Suffolk branch.

J.A. 6634.

Glenn testified that he inflated those invoices as instructed,
and that the Bank paid them.
jury,

is

sufficient

to

This evidence, if believed by the

support

conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

Brandon’s

conviction

for

We therefore affirm Brandon’s

conviction on this count. 2

IV.
Based

on

the

foregoing,

Appellants’

convictions

and

Brandon’s sentence are hereby
AFFIRMED.

2

We have reviewed the record as to all of Appellants’
challenges and find no reversible error in any of them.

10