US v. Denetria Myle

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00239-GCM-DCK-24. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999730610]. [15-4107]

Appeal: 15-4107

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENETRIA MYLES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00239-GCM-DCK-24)

Submitted:

November 30, 2015

Decided:

January 6, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven T. Meier, MEIER LAW, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland Rose, Acting United States
Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4107

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Denetria
conspiracy

Myles

to

was

violate

convicted

the

after

Racketeer

a

jury

Influenced

trial

and

of

Corrupt

Organizations Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (2012),
and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 2 (2012).
She was sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Myles

challenges the district court’s denials of her motion in limine
as to late discovery and her motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
Myles
denying

her

first

contends

motion

in

We affirm.
that

limine

the
to

district

exclude

court

evidence

erred
that,

in
she

asserts, the Government produced after the close of discovery.
“We review a district court’s decision regarding whether a party
has violated [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 16, as well as its decision to
order a particular sanction, for abuse of discretion.”

United

States v. Gonzales-Flores, 701 F.3d 112, 117 (4th Cir. 2012).
When, as here, the district court’s decision is based on an
interpretation of its own order, “to sustain appellate review,
district courts need only adopt a reasonable construction of the
terms contained in their orders.”

Wolfe v. Clarke, 718 F.3d

277, 284 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
JTH Tax, Inc. v. H&R Block E. Tax Servs., 359 F.3d 699, 705 (4th
Cir. 2004).

Here, the scheduling order specified deadlines for

motions to compel discovery and responses to those motions but
2

Appeal: 15-4107

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 6

did not explicitly establish a deadline for the completion of
discovery.

Therefore, the court reasonably found that Myles’

position overstated and misread the order and properly denied
the motion in limine.
Additionally, to the extent that Myles also contends the
Government committed a violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963), we discern no error.

When, as here, a defendant

fails to preserve an argument by “object[ing] on the same basis
below as [s]he contends is error on appeal,” this court reviews
for plain error.

United States v. Zayyad, 741 F.3d 452, 459

(4th Cir. 2014); see Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct.
1121,

1126-27

(2013)

(discussing

plain

error

standard).

We

conclude that Myles has failed to show plain error.
Here,

the

notarization

challenged

of

concluded

that,

intended

to

conspiracy.

multiple
in

revealed

signatures,

light

defraud

evidence

of

with

the
the

and

Myles’

the

jury

evidence

against

purpose

of

fraudulent
reasonably
Myles,

furthering

she
the

Myles fails to demonstrate that this evidence was

unfairly prejudicial.

See United States v. Mohr, 318 F.3d 613,

619-20 (4th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard for admission of
evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 403).

Similarly, she fails to

establish a Brady violation because she has made no assertions
that

the

evidence

was

favorable

to

her,

material,

in

the

Government’s possession prior to trial, or not disclosed upon
3

Appeal: 15-4107

Doc: 39

request.
2015)

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 4 of 6

See Watkins v. Rubenstein, 802 F.3d 637, 642 (4th Cir.

(discussing

elements

necessary

to

establish

Brady

violation).
Finally, Myles challenges the district court’s denial of
her motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
“This [c]ourt reviews de novo a district court’s decision on a
motion

to

dismiss

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.”

Durden v. United States, 736 F.3d 296, 300 (4th Cir. 2013).
Section

3231

subject-matter
prosecutions.

of

Title

18

of

the

jurisdiction

in

United

States

all

18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2012).

Code

federal

confers
criminal

This unquestionably

includes the bank-fraud statute with which Myles was charged, 18
U.S.C. § 1344.
An element of a § 1344 violation is that “the institution
was a federally insured or chartered bank.”
Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2014).

United States v.
While a bank’s

federally insured status provides the jurisdictional nexus for
the statute, “any challenge claiming that the government failed
to

prove

at

trial

that

essential

element

does

not

thereby

undermine the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, or its power
to hear the case.”

United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 964

(9th Cir. 2003); accord United States v. Carr, 271 F.3d 172, 178
(4th Cir. 2001) (holding that whether jurisdictional element of
criminal offense is “demonstrated in an individual circumstance
4

Appeal: 15-4107

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 5 of 6

does not affect a court’s constitutional or statutory power to
adjudicate

a

“[D]efects

case”

in

the

(internal

quotation

government’s

evidence

marks

omitted)).

regarding

a

bank’s

federally-insured status in a bank robbery case go to the merits
of the case.”
Here,

Ratigan, 351 F.3d at 963.

even

assuming

the

Government

failed

to

prove

the

insurance element beyond a reasonable doubt, the district court
did not lack jurisdiction over the case.

Additionally, as the

court aptly observed, Myles’ motion to dismiss improperly relied
on

28

U.S.C.

§ 1331

(2012),

which

governs

jurisdiction in civil, not criminal, cases.

federal-question
Moreover, to the

extent that Myles challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting her bank-fraud conviction, we conclude such a claim
is

meritless.

constituting
Government

the

Myles’
insurance

presented

stipulation
element

evidence

at

of

admitted
bank

trial

the

fraud,

and

establishing

facts
the
the

insurance status of banks identified as lenders in the fraud
charge of which the jury convicted her.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly
denied the motions in limine and to dismiss, and we affirm the
district

court’s

judgment.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

5

Appeal: 15-4107

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 6 of 6

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6