US v. Paul Toth, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00195-RJC-DCK-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999986578]. [16-4116]

Appeal: 16-4116

Doc: 48

Filed: 12/14/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL R. TOTH, JR., a/k/a P. J. Toth, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00195-RJC-DCK-1)

Submitted:

November 30, 2016

Decided:

December 14, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Leslie
R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, David M. Lieberman, Appellate
Section, Patrick M. Donley, William Henry Bowne, III, Anna
Kaminska, Fraud Section, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4116

Doc: 48

Filed: 12/14/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Paul R. Toth, Jr., was convicted after a jury trial of
conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956(h)

(2012),

and

six

counts

of

money

laundering

concealment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)
(2012),

and

On appeal,
district

was

Toth

to

108

challenges

his

erred

court

blindness.

sentenced

instructing

in

months’

convictions,
the

imprisonment.

arguing
jury

that

on

the

willful

We affirm.

We reject Toth’s contention that the district court erred
in

giving

an

instruction

on

willful

blindness

because

Toth

invited the error of which he now complains by requesting a
willful

blindness

See United

States

instruction
v.

the

725

Lespier,

in

F.3d

proceedings
437,

445-46,

below.
449-51

(4th Cir. 2013) (invited error doctrine applies where defendant
opposed provision of a lesser-included offense instruction and
then argued on appeal that it was error for instruction not to
have been given); United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 772
(4th Cir.

2010)

(declining,

under

invited

error

doctrine,

to

review defendant’s claim that the jury misused a book containing
transcripts

of

recorded

telephone

calls

where

defendant

confirmed to the district court that he did not object to the
jury having access to the book and further agreed to the method
by which the jury would gain access to the book).
2

Further, Toth

Appeal: 16-4116

Doc: 48

Filed: 12/14/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

does not establish the presence of extraordinary circumstances
that

would

appellant.

warrant

our

review

of

an

error

invited

by

an

See Hickman, 626 F.3d at 772.

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

3