US v. Sean Mescall
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00215-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [14-4881]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
SEAN F. MESCALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00215-RJC-1)
October 29, 2015
December 14, 2015
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Robert Terpening,
Carolina, for Appellant.
States Attorney, Anthony
Attorney, Charlotte, North
NEXSEN PRUET, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Jill Westmoreland Rose, Acting United
J. Enright, Assistant United States
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
78j(b), 78ff (2012), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (2014);
wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012); and money laundering, 18
Mescall’s operation of a Ponzi scheme through which he defrauded
victims of approximately $1.5 million.
He was sentenced to 168
Mescall appeals, claiming that the prosecutions
violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Commission brought a civil action against Mescall, charging him
with operating the Ponzi scheme.
On September 16, 2009, the
district court issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the
movement of assets, appointing a receiver, and requiring Mescall
preliminary injunction, and the court found him in contempt.
referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for possible criminal
Mescall was charged with and convicted of
criminal contempt, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) (2012).
Pg: 3 of 4
Mescall’s operation of the Ponzi scheme.
Following a trial,
Mescall was convicted on all counts.
Mescall contends that the instant convictions were for the
obtained in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, U.S. Const.
prosecutions for the same offense as well as the imposition of
cumulative punishments for the same offense in a single criminal
United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300, 313 (4th Cir.
2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under Blockburger v.
United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), “successive prosecutions do
not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if each offense contains
an element not contained in the other.”
United States v. Hall,
Criminal contempt has as an element the willful violation of a
court order, United States v. Allen, 587 F.3d 246, 255 (5th Cir.
fraud contains an element — use of a wire communication, United
Pg: 4 of 4
element — engaging in fraud in connection with the purchase or
sale of a security, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 —
that criminal contempt does not; and money laundering contains
proceeds of an unlawful activity, United States v. Cone, 714
F.3d 197, 214 (4th Cir. 2013) — that criminal contempt does not.
We conclude that there was no double jeopardy violation.
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the material before the court and argument would not aid the
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?