US v. Joy First

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00444-TSE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999405862]. Mailed to: First, Haney, Kilbride, Obuszewski, Runkel, Dusynska. [14-4149, 14-4150, 14-4161, 14-4165, 14-4168]

Appeal: 14-4149

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOY FIRST,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4150

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PHILLIP RUNKEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4161

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.

Appeal: 14-4149

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

MALACHY KILBRIDE,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4165

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JANICE SEVRE’-DUSZYNSKA,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-4168

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAX OBUSZEWSKI,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge.
(1:13-cr-00444-TSE-1; 1:13-cr-00446-TSE-IDD-1;
1:13-cr-00425-TSE-IDD-1; 1:13-cr-00447-TSE-IDD-1; 1:13-cr-00445TSE-1)

Submitted:

July 15, 2014

Decided:

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
2

July 30, 2014

Appeal: 14-4149

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/30/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joy First; Phillip Runkel; Malachy Kilbride; Janice Sevre’Duszynska; Max Obuszewski, Appellants Pro Se. Stacy M. Chaffin,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Rosanne Cannon Haney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

Appeal: 14-4149

Doc: 30

Filed: 07/30/2014

Pg: 4 of 5

PER CURIAM:
After a bench trial before a magistrate judge, Joy
First, Phillip Runkel, Malachy Kilbride, Janice Sevre’-Duszynska
and Max Obuszewski were convicted of trespassing in violation of
32 C.F.R. § 1903.7(a) (2014).

The district court affirmed their

convictions.

the

sufficiency

On
of

appeal,

the

evidence

Appellants

as

well

challenge

certain

the

evidentiary

decisions made by the magistrate judge.
On appeal from a district court order affirming a
magistrate judge’s decision, we use the same standard used by
the district court:

whether the magistrate judge’s findings

when viewed in a light most favorable to the Government were
clearly erroneous.
(5th Cir. 1976).

United States v. Hughes, 542 F.2d 246, 248
We have reviewed the evidence, including the

various arguments put forth by the Appellants that their conduct
was not illegal, and conclude that there is sufficient evidence
to support the convictions.
We have also reviewed the evidentiary decisions made
by the magistrate judge and conclude that there was no abuse of
discretion.

United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir.

2011).
Accordingly,
We

dispense

with

oral

we

affirm

argument

4

the

district

because

the

court’s
facts

orders.

and

legal

Appeal: 14-4149

Doc: 30

contentions

are

Filed: 07/30/2014

adequately

Pg: 5 of 5

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5