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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?