US v. Mark S. Manuel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00479-CMC-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999660985]. Mailed to: Mark Manuel and James Dew. [14-4560, 14-4561]

Appeal: 14-4560

Doc: 34

Filed: 09/16/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4560

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK SHANNON MANUEL,
Defendant – Appellant.

No. 14-4561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES CHAPPELL DEW,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00479-CMC-2; 3:13-cr-00479-CMC-3)

Submitted:

August 31, 2015

Decided:

September 16, 2015

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Appeal: 14-4560

Doc: 34

Filed: 09/16/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Shannon Manuel, James Chappell Dew, Appellants Pro Se.
Tommie DeWayne Pearson, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-4560

Doc: 34

Filed: 09/16/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Mark S. Manuel and James C. Dew were convicted by a jury of
eight counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1341
(2012),

and

Defendants

were
raise

each

sentenced

120

arguments

several

to

on

months

in

appeal,

prison.
including

challenges to the district court’s decision to admit certain
evidence against Defendants; the district court’s interruption
during

the

Government’s

direct

examination

of

one

of

its

witnesses; and the district court’s failure to dismiss the mail
fraud charges against them after it granted Defendants’ motion
to

dismiss

a

charge

of

uttering

counterfeit

government

obligations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 (2012).

We have

reviewed the record and have considered Defendants’ arguments
and find no reversible error by the district court.
For

instance,

we

discern

no

reversible

error

in

the

district court’s interruption of the Government’s examination of
one of its witnesses.

Under Fed. R. Evid. 611, trial courts

have the authority to organize the mode and order of witnesses
in order to make effective procedures for determining the truth.
Moreover, trial judges have the right, and often the obligation,
to “interrupt the presentations of counsel in order to clarify
misunderstandings.”

United States v. Smith, 452 F.3d 323, 332

(4th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Thus,

we find that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district
3

Appeal: 14-4560

Doc: 34

court

to

Filed: 09/16/2015

ask

clarifying

Pg: 4 of 5

questions

and

allow

return to the stand to clarify his testimony.

the

witness

to

See United States

v. Cassiagnol, 420 F.2d 868, 877 (4th Cir. 1970) (finding no
reversible
court’s]

error

where

questioning

the

was

“obvious

to

clear

purpose
up

a

of

the

confusing

[trial
factual

situation and the triers of fact (the jury in Cassiagnol’s case
.

.

.)

were

entitled

determination
evidence

is

questions

of
in

the

to

facts[,]”

conflict

designed

information

to

it

bring

is

and

necessary
holding

proper

before

that

for

the

to

a

jury

a

correct

“where

judge
the

the

to

ask

facts

and

circumstances pertinent to the alleged offense”).
We also discern no reversible error in the district court’s
jury instructions.

In particular, although Defendants did not

request that the jury be instructed regarding the dismissal of
one

of

the

instruction
counts

of

counts
was

with

not

which

which

legally

Defendants

they

were

supported.
were

charged,
In

convicted

such

particular,

required

that

an
the
the

Government prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendants:
“(1) devised or intended to devise a scheme to defraud and (2)
used

the

scheme.”

mail

or

wire

communications

in

furtherance

of

the

United States v. Wynn, 684 F.3d 473, 477 (4th Cir.

2012).
In contrast, the dismissed charge, which charged Defendants
with uttering counterfeit government obligations, required that
4

Appeal: 14-4560

the

Doc: 34

Filed: 09/16/2015

Government

Defendants:
presented,

prove,

Pg: 5 of 5

beyond

a

reasonable

doubt,

that

(1) with intent to defraud; (2) passed uttered,
offered,

brokered,

issued,

sold,

or

attempted

or

caused the same, or with like intent possessed within the United
States; (3) a false or fictitious instrument, document, or other
item appearing, representing, purporting, or contriving through
scheme or artifice to be an actual security or other financial
instrument issued under the authority of the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 514 (2012).

See

As separate and distinct elements were

required to prove the counts, there was no need for the trial
court to instruct the jury about the dismissed count.
We have reviewed Defendants’ arguments in their entirety
and

find

district

them

to

court’s

be

meritless.

judgments.

We

Accordingly,
dispense

with

we

affirm

oral

the

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5