US v. Michael Marshall
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00261-FDW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999946383].. [15-4449]
Appeal: 15-4449
Doc: 47
Filed: 10/13/2016
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4449
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL A. MARSHALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00261-FDW-1)
Submitted:
September 30, 2016
Decided:
October 13, 2016
Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric J. Foster, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill
Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4449
Doc: 47
Filed: 10/13/2016
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Marshall was convicted after a jury trial of
conspiracy
to
commit
offenses
against
the
United
States,
including wire fraud, bank fraud, and making false statements to
financial institutions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012)
(count 1), bank fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344 (2012) (count 2), and conspiracy to commit
money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2012).
The district court sentenced Marshall to 60 months’ imprisonment
on count 1 and concurrent terms of 96 months’ imprisonment on
each of counts 2 and 3.
Marshall now appeals.
On appeal, he
challenges the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P.
29 motion for judgment of acquittal on the basis of insufficient
evidence, the district court’s instructions to the jury on count
1, and the district court’s calculation of the loss amount under
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1 (2014).
We affirm.
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de
novo and must affirm the jury’s verdict if it is supported by
substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Government.
United States v. Palomino-Coronado, 805 F.3d 127,
130 (4th Cir. 2015).
reasonable
finder
“Substantial evidence is evidence that a
of
fact
could
accept
as
adequate
and
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Appeal: 15-4449
Doc: 47
After
reject
Filed: 10/13/2016
review
wholly
as
of
the
without
Pg: 3 of 6
record
and
merit
the
parties’
Marshall’s
briefs,
challenges
to
we
the
sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions on all
three counts.
Marshall’s arguments fail to establish reversible
error
district
in
adduced
the
at
trial
was
court’s
conclusion
sufficient
to
that
support
the
his
evidence
convictions.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1014, 1343, 1344, 1956(h), 1957 (2012);
United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141, 149 (4th Cir. 2016),
petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. June 28, 2016)
(No. 16-5017); United States v. Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250, 254-55
(4th Cir. 2014); United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 366
(4th
Cir.
2012);
United
(4th Cir.
2008);
United
(4th Cir.
2003);
United
States
States
v.
v.
States
v.
Singh,
518
F.3d
236,
248
Cherry,
330
F.3d
658,
668
29
F.3d
914,
916
Smith,
(4th Cir. 1994).
Turning to the district court’s instructions on count 1, we
review
for
plain
error
Marshall’s
argument
that
the
court
erroneously instructed the jury with respect to the wire-fraud
object
because
he
did
not
object
below
instructions on the ground he now advances.
to
the
court’s
See Fed. R. Crim.
P. 52(b); Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126-27
(2013).
3
Appeal: 15-4449
Doc: 47
Regarding
Filed: 10/13/2016
the
Pg: 4 of 6
wire-fraud
object,
the
district
court
instructed the jury, among other matters, that:
A violation of this statute would require proof that,
one, someone in the conspiracy, with the intent to
defraud, knowingly devised a scheme or artifice to
defraud or to obtain money or property by means of
material
false
or
fraudulent
pretenses,
representations or promised [sic] as detailed in the
indictment; and two, that in furtherance of the
scheme, someone transmitted or caused the transmission
of any writing by a means of a wire communication in
interstate or foreign commerce.
J.A. 647 (emphases added).
Marshall argues that, because the
second use in this instruction of “someone” was not followed by
the words “in the conspiracy,” the jury could have found him
guilty when neither he nor any other member of the conspiracy
transmitted information by wire.
We conclude after review of
the record that the court’s second use in the instruction of the
word “someone” without the modifier “in the conspiracy” was not
clear or obvious error under the settled law of the Supreme
Court or of this circuit.
See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 733 (1993); United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503, 516
(4th Cir. 2013).
Further, as Marshall has not suggested that he
would have been acquitted or that his trial would have ended in
a hung jury had the district court modified its second use of
the
word
“someone”
with
the
phrase
“in
the
conspiracy,”
he
cannot establish that the challenged instruction affected the
outcome of the trial.
See United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d
4
Appeal: 15-4449
Doc: 47
Filed: 10/13/2016
Pg: 5 of 6
659, 680 (4th Cir. 2001); United States v. Nicolaou, 180 F.3d
565, 570 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Hastings, 134 F.3d
235, 240 (4th Cir. 1998).
burden
to
demonstrate
Marshall thus has not carried his
plain
error
in
the
district
court’s
instructions on count 1.
Finally,
Marshall
challenges
the
district
court’s
calculation of the loss amount attributable to him under the
Sentencing Guidelines, arguing that the court erroneously failed
to credit against that amount payments made to the victims and
capital recovered by them prior to sentencing.
present
this
argument
plain error only.
below,
and
we
Marshall did not
therefore
review
it
for
United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292
(4th Cir. 2012).
Only
district
a
preponderance
court’s
of
factual
the
evidence
determination
of
need
support
the
loss
the
amount
attributable to Marshall.
United States v. Miller, 316 F.3d
495, 503 (4th Cir. 2003).
The district court need only make a
“reasonable
estimate”
of
the
loss.
United
States
v.
Cloud,
680 F.3d 396, 409 (4th Cir. 2012); USSG § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(C).
Generally, the loss amount under USSG § 2B1.1 “is the greater of
actual loss or intended loss.”
USSG § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A).
Here, the presentence report recommended application of a
14-level
enhancement
under
USSG
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(H)
for
a
loss
exceeding $400,000 based on the determination in the description
5
Appeal: 15-4449
Doc: 47
Filed: 10/13/2016
Pg: 6 of 6
of the offense conduct that the loss to the victim lenders as
result of Marshall’s criminal conduct was over $425,000.
The
district court adopted the portion of the PSR calculating the
loss amount and relied on the information therein in calculating
Marshall’s Guidelines range and imposing sentence.
As Marshall
made no affirmative showing that the information in the PSR was
not correct, the district court was free to adopt and rely on it
in sentencing him.
See United States v. Revels, 455 F.3d 448,
451 n.2 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195,
210-11 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606
(4th
Cir.
establishes
court,
1998).
a
The
loss
therefore,
undisputed
amount
did
exceeding
not
plainly
relevant
conduct
$400,000.
err
in
easily
The
district
holding
Marshall
accountable for a loss amount exceeding $400,000.
Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment.
We dispense
with oral 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
6
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?