Snyder v. USA - 2255

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 1/17/13. (cags, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ROBIN NEIL SNYDER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:
:
:
:
:
...o0o...

CIVIL NO. CCB-11-3357
Criminal No. CCB-07-155

MEMORANDUM
Federal prison inmate Robin Neil Snyder, convicted by a jury of wire fraud, money
laundering, and obstruction of justice, was sentenced to a total of 97 months in prison on August
26, 2008, after a motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal, his convictions were affirmed by
the Fourth Circuit. United States v. Snyder, 365 F. App’x 508 (4th Cir. 2010). Snyder then filed
a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in November 2011, which was fully briefed as of July
2012. The motion has been considered and will be denied.
Snyder first argues that he is actually innocent of the wire fraud charges brought against
him, that the jury instructions were flawed, and that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective
for failing to raise these issues with the courts. He relies on Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct.
2896 (2010), decided after this appeal was concluded, which dealt with the constitutionality of
the “honest-services” fraud statute enacted by Congress in 1988. See 18 U.S.C. § 1346. That
statute defines “scheme or artifice to defraud” to include a scheme “to deprive another of the
intangible right of honest services.” Id. In Skilling, the Court construed the honest-services
doctrine as limited to schemes involving bribes and kickbacks. 130 S. Ct. at 2931. Snyder’s
1

argument is without merit, however, because the charges against him did not involve a theory of
depriving others of honest services; rather he was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 with an
advance-fee scheme to defraud victims by obtaining money from them through false promises
that he would work to obtain a loan on their behalf. (Gov’t Opp’n, Ex. 2, Superseding
Indictment.) His counsel understood that Snyder was not charged with “honest services” fraud
(Id., Ex. 4-5, Affs.) and therefore did not propose meritless objections on that basis to the jury
instructions or the proof at trial.
Similarly, Snyder’s challenge to his money laundering conviction based on Cuellar v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 1994 (2008), is not persuasive. Cuellar dealt with the proof required
for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2) involving international transportation of the
proceeds of unlawful activity. Snyder was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), which
criminalizes conducting a financial transaction involving the proceeds of unlawful activity. The
jury was properly advised of the elements required to prove that offense. (Tr. Feb. 28, 2008, at
42-48). In any event, the claim was not raised on appeal and is procedurally defaulted. See
United States v. Frady, 102 S. Ct. 1584, 1591-93 (1982); United States v. Mikalajunas, 186 F.3d
490, 492-93 (4th Cir. 1999). Also defaulted are the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
Moreover, some of these claims, including the alleged perjured testimony of several government
witnesses, were raised and denied in connection with Snyder’s motion for a new trial. The
Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of a new trial in its 2010 opinion. 365 F. App’x at 510.
In summary, none of Snyder’s claims establish ineffective assistance of counsel, actual
innocence, or any other grounds for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. No certificate of
appealability is warranted under the standard set in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

2

A separate Order follows.

January 17, 2013
Date

/s/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

3