US v. Lawrence Reese

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 1:15-cr-00032-LO-1 and 1:15-cr-00032-LO-2. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999926836].. [15-4601, 15-4611]

Appeal: 15-4601

Doc: 33

Filed: 09/12/2016

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4601

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAWRENCE WAYNE REESE,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-4611

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LANCE TERRELL REESE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:15-cr-00032-LO-1; 1:15-cr-00032-LO-2)

Submitted:

August 15, 2016

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

September 12, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 15-4601

Doc: 33

Filed: 09/12/2016

Pg: 2 of 7

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dontae Lamont Bugg, BUGG LAW FIRM, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia;
Geremy Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Kevin R. Brehm,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellants. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Michael E.
Rich, Christopher Catizone, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-4601

Doc: 33

Filed: 09/12/2016

Pg: 3 of 7

PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, Lawrence Reese (“Lawrence”) and Lance
Reese (“Lance”) were convicted of various charges relating to
the

arson

of

Lawrence’s

business.

Lawrence

and

Lance

were

convicted of conspiracy to commit arson and arson, violations of
18 U.S.C. § 844(n), (i) (2012), respectively.
convicted

of

arson

to

commit

mail

fraud,

Lawrence also was
a

violation

of

18

U.S.C. § 844(h) (2012); arson to commit wire fraud, a § 844(h)
violation; mail fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2012);
and wire fraud, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012).
On appeal, Lance challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his convictions.

Next, Lawrence and Lance assert

that the district court erred by refusing to grant a new trial
based on certain comments made by the district court.
Lawrence

challenges

the

district

court’s

consecutive rather than concurrent sentences.

Finally,

imposition

of

We affirm.

I.
Lance asserts that the district court erred by denying his
motion for a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a).
We review the court’s denial de novo, United States v. Fuertes,
805 F.3d 485, 501-02 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
1220 (2016), and view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Government to determine whether the guilty verdict is
supported by substantial evidence.
3

United States v. Bailey, 819

Appeal: 15-4601

Doc: 33

Filed: 09/12/2016

F.3d 92, 95 (4th Cir. 2016).
substantial
jury’s

evidence

to

determinations

Pg: 4 of 7

“In determining whether there is

support
of

a

verdict,

credibility

and

we

defer

to

the

resolutions

of

conflicts in the evidence, as they are within the sole province
of the jury and are not susceptible to judicial review.”

United

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 303 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Lance contests the Government’s proof of his participation
in the conspiracy on the ground that the only evidence was the
testimony of a convicted coconspirator.
“that

the

testimony

of

a

We have held, however,

co-defendant

standing

alone

uncorroborated is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

and

United

States v. Patterson, 150 F.3d 382, 386 (4th Cir. 1998); United
States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1190 & n.10 (4th Cir. 1997).
After viewing the evidence as a whole and in the light most
favorable
sufficient

to

the

Government,

818

F.3d

141,

involvement

was

See

McNeal,

Lance’s

there

underlying conspiracy and aiding and abetting the arson.
v.

prove

that

the

States

to

conclude

in

United

evidence

we

149

(4th

Cir.

2016)

(stating elements of conspiracy), petition for cert. filed, __
U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. June 23, 2016) (No. 16-5017); United States v.
White, 771 F.3d 225, 230 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating elements of
arson), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1573 (2015); United States v.
Garcia, 752 F.3d 382, 389 n.6 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating elements
4

Appeal: 15-4601

Doc: 33

Filed: 09/12/2016

of aiding and abetting).

Pg: 5 of 7

Thus, the district court did not err

in denying Lance’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
II.
The Reeses challenge the district court’s denial of the
motion for a new trial based on certain comments made by the
district court during trial.

Generally, “we review the district

court’s denial of a [Fed. R. Crim. P. 33] motion for a new trial
for abuse of discretion.”

United States v. Parker, 790 F.3d

550, 558 (4th Cir. 2015).

When a party fails to object during

trial, however, our review is for plain error. 1

United States v.

Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 222 (4th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other
grounds by United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 238 (4th Cir.
2015); United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 672 (4th Cir.
2001).

Under either standard, Lawrence and Lance are entitled

to no relief.
The

Reeses

contend

that

the

district

commented on the coconspirator’s testimony.
1

court

improperly

See United States

To overturn the Reeses’ convictions under plain error
review, we must find (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3)
that affects substantial rights.
Molina-Martinez v. United
States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016).
Even if all three
conditions are met, it is within our discretion whether to
remedy the error, and we will refrain from intervening unless
“the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.”
Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted).

5

Appeal: 15-4601

Doc: 33

Filed: 09/12/2016

Pg: 6 of 7

v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d 232, 239 (4th Cir. 2016) (providing
standard).

Here,

the

district

court’s

intervention

“simply

fulfill[ed] its obligation to clarify confused factual issues or
misunderstandings [and] to correct inadequacies of examination
or cross-examination.”

United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267,

1273 (4th Cir. 1995).

In addition, the district court gave

numerous instructions to the jury reminding the jury that it was
their

recollection

of

the

evidence

that

controlled.

See

Martinovich, 810 F.3d at 241.

We therefore conclude that the

court’s

not

isolated

statement

did

unfairly

prejudice

either

Lance or Lawrence so as to deprive either of a fair trial.

See

United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 336 (4th Cir. 2008).
Next, the Reeses challenge the district court’s comments
during

Lance’s

Government’s

counsel’s

closing

closing

rebuttal

argument

argument.

Our

and

during

review

of

the
the

record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err
in denying the motion for a new trial on these grounds.

The

court instructed the jury that it was the Government’s burden to
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that it was the jury’s
recollection of the evidence that controlled.

6

See Martinovich,

Appeal: 15-4601

Doc: 33

810 F.3d at 241.

Filed: 09/12/2016

Pg: 7 of 7

Accordingly, the district court’s denial of

the motion for a new trial was not erroneous. 2
III.
Finally, Lawrence challenges his sentence.
forecloses

his

argument

that

his

sentences

Our precedent
for

arson

and

conspiracy should be imposed concurrently with his sentences for
arson to commit mail and arson to commit wire fraud.

See United

States v. Martin, 523 F.3d 281, 293 n.6 (4th Cir. 2008); see
also 18 U.S.C. § 844(h).

Thus, the district court appropriately

sentenced Lawrence to a total of 15 years’ of imprisonment.
IV.
Accordingly, we affirm.

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

2

To the extent Lance and Lawrence also argue that the
cumulative effect of the court’s comments deprived them of a
fair trial, we reject this claim as well.

7