US v. Angela M. Blythe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00591-WDQ-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999886664].. [15-4799]

Appeal: 15-4799

Doc: 45

Filed: 07/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4799

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANGELA M. BLYTHE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:14-cr-00591-WDQ-1)

Submitted:

June 2, 2016

Decided:

July 13, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip Urofsky, Richard Vigil, Jon Weingart, Robert McCabe,
SHEARMAN & STERLING, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Joyce K. McDonald,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4799

Doc: 45

Filed: 07/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Angela M. Blythe of conspiracy to
commit

bank

fraud,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§§ 1344,

1349

(2012); bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; and two
counts

of

violation

knowingly
of

18

making

U.S.C.

false

§ 1014

statements

(2012).

The

to

banks,

district

in

court

sentenced Blythe to 12 months and 1 day of imprisonment on each
count to run concurrently, and she now appeals.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
Blythe first challenges the admission of documents from a
prior

trial

for

civil

fraud

in

which

attorney one of her coconspirators.
exclude

relevant

evidence

when

she

represented

as

an

A district court should
“its

probative

value

is

‘substantially outweighed’ by the potential for undue prejudice,
confusion, delay or redundancy.”
F.3d

991,

994

(4th

Cir.

1997)

United States v. Queen, 132
(quoting

Fed.

R.

Evid.

403).

“Prejudice, as used in Rule 403, refers to evidence that has an
undue

tendency

commonly,

though

to

suggest

not

decision

necessarily,

on

an

an

improper

emotional

basis,

one.”

Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).
“We apply a highly deferential standard of review to such
an issue, and a trial court’s decision to admit evidence over a
Rule 403 objection will not be overturned except under the most
extraordinary

circumstances,

where
2

that

discretion

has

been

Appeal: 15-4799

Doc: 45

Filed: 07/13/2016

plainly abused.”

Pg: 3 of 4

United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 132

(4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Therefore,

“we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to its
proponent,

maximizing

prejudicial effect.”
(4th Cir. 2011).

its

probative

value

and

minimizing

its

United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and

conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
this evidence.
Blythe next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support her convictions.

We review a district court’s decision

to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal
de novo.
2006).

United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence

faces a heavy burden.
1067 (4th Cir. 1997).

United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064,
In determining whether the evidence is

sufficient to support a conviction, we determine “whether there
is substantial evidence in the record, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the government, to support the conviction.”
United States v. Palacios, 677 F.3d 234, 248 (4th Cir. 2012)
(internal

quotation

“evidence

that

a

marks

omitted).

reasonable

finder

Substantial
of

fact

evidence

could

accept

is
as

adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
omitted).

Furthermore,

Id. (internal quotation marks

“[d]eterminations
3

of

credibility

are

Appeal: 15-4799

Doc: 45

Filed: 07/13/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

within the sole province of the jury and are not susceptible to
judicial review.”

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

For the conspiracy count, the Government had to demonstrate
that Blythe conspired to execute a scheme to defraud a financial
institution.
fraud

18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349.

conviction

knowingly

under

executing

§ 1344

or

The elements of a bank

include

attempting

a

(1)

scheme

the
or

defendant

artifice

to

defraud a financial institution, (2) with the intent to defraud,
and

(3)

the

institution

is

federally

insured

or

chartered.

United States v. Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2014).

In

addition, “[a] person violates § 1014 by knowingly making any
false statement for the purpose of influencing in any way the
action

of

any

FDIC-insured

financial

institution

upon

any

application, advance, discount, purchase, commitment or loan.”
Elliott v. United States, 332 F.3d 753, 759 (4th Cir. 2003).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that there was a
considerable amount of substantial evidence presented at trial
supporting the jury’s verdict of guilt on all the counts.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
4