Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 15-4713
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:14-cr-00132-RGD-LRL-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Chisholm appeals his jury convictions and 218-month
sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349 (2012); four counts of mail fraud,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 1341 (2012); and 14 counts of
aggravated
identity
theft,
1028A(a)(1) (2012).
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
2,
and
(3)
imposed
an
unreasonable
sentence
when
it
consecutive
Government
without
to
both
his
remaining
forfeiture
crediting
one
for
and
the
sentences,
and
restitution
for
other.
Finding
awarded
his
no
the
crimes
error,
we
affirm.
We
review
instructions
for
district
an
abuse
courts
of
decision
discretion.
regarding
United
jury
States
v.
Because a district
district
courts
2
instructions
faces
heavy
burden.
See Noel v. Artson, 641 F.3d 580, 586 (4th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly,
construed
as
we
must
determine
whole,
and
in
whether
light
the
of
the
instructions
whole
record,
In
Id.
considered
(internal
Chisholms
quotation
arguments
marks
and
omitted).
discern
no
We
error
in
have
the
give
substantial
deference
to
district
courts
an
irrational.
2011)
evidentiary
ruling
that
is
arbitrary
and
(internal
quotation
marks
3
omitted);
see
Malone
v.
for
that
of
the
district
court;
rather,
we
must
quotation
marks
omitted).
When
reviewing
the
maximizing
prejudicial effect.
its
probative
value
and
minimizing
its
We
discretion,
States
v.
Hayden,
defendant
85
F.3d
To establish abuse
must
show
prejudice.
153,
158
(4th
Cir.
See
United
1996).
Given
particular
witnesss
comment,
it
was
not
error
for
the
See
Wallace, 515 F.3d at 330-31 (holding that district court did not
abuse its discretion when it denied motion for mistrial where
Government did not purposefully elicit prejudicial testimony and
defense
counsel
did
not
immediately
request
curative
instruction).
We review a sentence for reasonableness.
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Gall v. United
155,
161
(4th
Cir.
2008).
Procedural
errors
include
on
clearly
erroneous
facts,
or
failing
to
adequately
and
only
if,
we
find
sentence
procedurally
the
Guidelines
range
is
reasonable.
See
United
States
v.
it
increased
his
offense
level
5
for
using
sophisticated
means
to
commit
his
offenses,
pursuant
to
U.S.
conduct
involved
sophisticated
Sentencing
Whether a
means
is
an
sentencing
enhancement
for
an
offense
that
involves
when
Thus,
the
defendant
sophisticated
employs
means
especially
USSG
enhancement
complex
or
For
scheme
operations
in
in
one
jurisdiction
another
sophisticated means.
but
jurisdiction
locating
soliciting
ordinarily
indicates
Id.
683 F.3d 471, 486 (4th Cir. 2012) (applying sophisticated means
enhancement
in
USSG
2T1.1(b)(2)
6
in
context
of
tax
fraud).
concealment
inherent
in
fraud.
Id.
(internal
Chisholm
characterizes
his
conduct
as
merely
cashing checks, and insists that his conduct lacked any of the
badges
of
sophistication[,]
we
find
that
the
evidence
the
concealment
inherent
in
fraud.
Accordingly,
we
reject
Chisholms
argument
that
the
district
court
of
the
consecutive
aggravated
to
his
identity
remaining
theft
sentences.
convictions
Although
to
run
Chisholm
Because
his 218-month sentence, we find that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence. *
Based
judgment.
legal
on
the
we
affirm
the
district
courts
contentions
before
foregoing,
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED