Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding sentences issued in a bank fraud case. Brandon Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and bank fraud charges, while a jury convicted Rasheeda McConnell of related charges. Both defendants argued on appeal that the district court erred in calculating intended loss amounts attributed to them under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's loss calculations or other sentencing determinations. As such, the Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences issued by the district court in both cases.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    30 views6 pages
    This document summarizes two appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding sentences issued in a bank fraud case. Brandon Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and bank fraud charges, while a jury convicted Rasheeda McConnell of related charges. Both defendants argued on appeal that the district court erred in calculating intended loss amounts attributed to them under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's loss calculations or other sentencing determinations. As such, the Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences issued by the district court in both cases.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-05-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4842

    Original Title

    United States v. Rasheeda McConnell, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes two appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding sentences issued in a bank fraud case. Brandon Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and bank fraud charges, while a jury convicted Rasheeda McConnell of related charges. Both defendants argued on appeal that the district court erred in calculating intended loss amounts attributed to them under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's loss calculations or other sentencing determinations. As such, the Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences issued by the district court in both cases.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    30 views6 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding sentences issued in a bank fraud case. Brandon Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and bank fraud charges, while a jury convicted Rasheeda McConnell of related charges. Both defendants argued on appeal that the district court erred in calculating intended loss amounts attributed to them under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's loss calculations or other sentencing determinations. As such, the Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences issued by the district court in both cases.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 6

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4842

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    RASHEEDA MCCONNELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    No. 14-4855

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    BRANDON JERMAINE JOHNSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    John A. Gibney, Jr.,
    District Judge. (3:14-cr-00028-JAG-3; 3:14-cr-00028-JAG-1)

    Submitted:

    May 8, 2015

    Decided:

    Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    May 28, 2015

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    W. Barry Montgomery, KALBAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, PC,


    Richmond, Virginia; Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public
    Defender, Nia A. Vidal, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
    Patrick L. Bryant, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellants.
    Dana J. Boente, United
    States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Charles A. Quagliato, Special Assistant United States
    Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Brandon Jermaine Johnson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
    commit

    bank

    fraud,

    in

    violation

    of

    18

    U.S.C.

    1344,

    1349

    (2012), and three counts of bank fraud and aiding and abetting,
    in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 1344 (2012).

    A federal jury

    convicted Rasheeda McConnell of conspiracy to commit bank fraud,


    and six counts of bank fraud and aiding and abetting.

    The

    district court sentenced Johnson to 96 months of imprisonment


    and sentenced McConnell to 60 months of imprisonment.
    appeal their sentences.

    They both

    Finding no error, we affirm.

    Johnson and McConnell argue on appeal that the district


    court erred in calculating the intended loss attributable to
    them under the Sentencing Guidelines.
    reasonableness,

    applying

    an

    abuse

    We review a sentence for


    of

    discretion

    standard.

    Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United
    States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 335 (4th Cir. 2009).

    We will

    presume on appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated


    advisory

    Guidelines

    range

    is

    reasonable.

    United

    States

    v.

    Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United
    States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of
    reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
    Moreover,
    under

    the

    in

    reviewing

    Guidelines,

    we

    the

    district

    review

    the

    courts

    district

    calculations

    courts

    legal

    conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.


    3

    United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010)
    (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v.
    Otuya,

    720

    F.3d

    calculation

    of

    183,

    loss

    191

    (4th

    amount

    Cir.

    reviewed

    denied, 134 S. Ct. 1279 (2014).

    2013)
    for

    (district

    clear

    courts

    error),

    cert.

    We will find clear error only

    if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and
    firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
    In

    calculating

    the

    Sentencing

    Guidelines

    enhancement,

    loss

    for

    purposes

    Manual]

    district

    court

    Id. at 631.

    of

    2B1.1(b)(1)

    may

    consider

    the

    the

    [U.S.

    [(2014)]
    greater

    of

    actual loss or intended loss and must only make a reasonable


    estimate

    of

    that

    amount

    based

    on

    available

    information.

    Otuya, 720 F.3d at 191 (quoting USSG 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A), (C)).
    In a case like this one involving jointly undertaken criminal
    activity, a particular loss may be attributed to a defendant if
    it results from the conduct of others so long as the conduct was
    in

    furtherance

    with

    the

    of,

    and

    criminal

    1B1.3(a)(1)(B)).

    reasonably

    foreseeable

    activity.

    Id.

    in

    connection

    (quoting

    USSG

    Due to the unique position of a sentencing

    judge in assessing the evidence, the courts loss determination


    is

    entitled

    Abdulwahab,
    quotation

    to
    715

    marks

    appropriate

    deference.

    F.3d

    534

    521,

    omitted).

    We

    (4th
    have

    United
    Cir.

    2013)

    thoroughly

    States

    v.

    (internal

    reviewed

    the

    record and conclude that the district court did not clearly err
    4

    in calculating the intended loss attributable to Johnson and


    McConnell under the Guidelines.
    Johnson also argues that the court erred in applying an
    enhancement

    under

    the

    Guidelines

    for

    obstruction

    based on his testimony at McConnells trial.

    of

    justice

    Pursuant to USSG

    3C1.1, a district court must apply a two-level enhancement in


    offense level if the defendant attempted to obstruct or impede
    the administration of justice with respect to the prosecution of
    the

    offense

    of

    conviction

    and

    that

    conduct

    conviction or a closely related offense.

    related

    to

    the

    In order to apply the

    enhancement based on a defendants perjurious testimony, the


    sentencing court must find that the defendant (1) gave false
    testimony; (2) concerning a material matter; (3) with willful
    intent to deceive.

    United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 189, 192

    (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

    Our review

    of the record and the relevant legal authorities leads us to


    conclude that the court correctly applied the enhancement for
    obstruction

    of

    justice

    in

    calculating

    Johnsons

    advisory

    Guidelines range.
    Finally,

    McConnell

    challenges

    reasonableness of her sentence.


    courts
    sentence.
    district

    thorough
    We
    court,

    and

    that

    substantive

    We have reviewed the district

    reasoned

    conclude,

    the

    based

    McConnell
    5

    explanation
    on

    the

    has

    of

    reasons

    failed

    to

    McConnells

    cited

    by

    the

    overcome

    the

    presumption of reasonableness applied to her within-Guidelines


    sentence.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgments 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 in the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like