United States v. Lee B. Phillips, 76 F.3d 376, 4th Cir. (1996)

76 F.
3d 376
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation

of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lee B. PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 94-5210.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 8, 1995.
Decided Feb. 5, 1996.
ARGUED: Walter Stephen Booth, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant.

Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and THORNBURG, United
States District Court Judge for the Western District of North Carolina,
sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
On August 5, 1993, a grand jury for the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland returned a twelve count bill of indictment charging the
defendant with bank fraud and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1344 and 2. He was found guilty on all counts by jury verdict returned
December 1, 1993.
Defendant made numerous post-trial motions, all of which were denied by the
district court. Most issues raised by these rulings have been abandoned with the
exception of challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the district court's
decision to permit the government to reopen its case, and a jury instruction to
which no objection was entered at the time of trial.
For the reasons stated below, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Additional facts will be recited as necessary to support or clarify this court's
ruling.
We first address the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the

government's evidence to support the jury's verdict. In reviewing the
sufficiency of proffered evidence to support a jury verdict, the analysis must be
whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government,
any rational trier of facts could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. United States v. Reavis, 48 F.3d 763 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
115 S.Ct. 2597 (1995).
Both the government and defendant presented lengthy and comprehensive

evidence. Considering this evidence in a light most favorable to the
government, a rational jury could find that defendant Phillips conceived and
was substantially involved in a scheme to defraud the First National Bank of St.
Mary'sBSM, a financial institution whose deposits were insured by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), from on or about May 1991, through on
or about June 1992; that the scheme was to be done and ultimately was
accomplished by obtaining a line of credit through FNBSM, and thereafter
submitting requests for advancements under the credit line, which requests were
supported by false documentation; that the bank honored the fraudulent
requests and thereby lost substantial sums of money; that the successful
conduct of the scheme involved not only defendant but others with whom he
worked; and that from the inception, the scheme to defraud was primarily
guided to fruition by the defendant Phillips. Thus, the government's evidence
was fully adequate to support a jury finding that the defendant was guilty of the
charges laid against him beyond a reasonable doubt.
The nature and extent of defendant's involvement, if any, was disputed by

extensive cross examination and his own testimony. The jury had full benefit of
all the evidence and ample opportunity to see, hear and consider all contentions
of the parties as well as the judge's instructions.
Defendant's argument in sum on this point is that the government's evidence
was inaccurate, inconsistent, and unreliable.

8 jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves
The
any conflicts in the evidence presented, and if the evidence supports different,
reasonable interpretations, the jury decides which interpretation to believe.
9
United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 115
S.Ct. 954 (1995) (citations omitted). Therefore, defendant's challenge to the
sufficiency of the government's evidence to prove defendant's guilt is overruled.
10
We next determine whether the lower court committed prejudicial error in

permitting the government to reopen its case and introduce additional evidence
after having rested its case-in-chief.
11
After the government rested, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal

because the government had failed to prove FNBSM was insured by the FDIC.
The district court denied the motion. After the defendant had begun his case,
the district court reconsidered and asked for further argument on the point, but
made no final decision. The government then requested the district court to
permit it to reopen its case to present FDIC certification over defendant's
objection. The district court granted the request, but did not take government
evidence at that time. These proceedings were had in the jury's absence.
12
Five days later, after defense counsel stated to the district court that he did not
know if he had further witnesses to call, the government asked to present its
evidence on the FDIC issue and provide brief rebuttal testimony by calling a
single witness. After colloquy between the district court and attorneys, defense
counsel stated he had "no objection" to the government's witness proceeding to
testify. Defense counsel also did not object to the judge's indication that he
would give no jury instruction as to the government's witness being presented
out of order.
13
Inasmuch as defendant lodged a timely objection to the granting of the

government's motion to reopen its case, the lower court's decision is reviewed
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Paz, 927 F.2d 176, 179 (4th Cir.1991).
In evaluating whether that discretion was abused, this court has articulated the
following criteria:
14 exercising its discretion, the court must consider the timeliness of the motion, the
In
character of the testimony, and the effect of the granting of the motion. The party
moving to reopen should provide a reasonable explanation for failure to present the
evidence in its case-in-chief. The evidence proffered should be relevant, admissible,
technically adequate, and helpful to the jury in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of
the accused. The belated receipt of such testimony should not "imbue the evidence
with distorted importance, prejudice the opposing party's case, or preclude an
adversary from having an adequate opportunity to meet the additional evidence
offered."
15
United States v. Peay, 972 F.2d 71, 73 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct.
1027 (1993) (other citations omitted).
16
The learned trial judge as well as counsel were uncertain as to whether the
technical evidence to be offered (the FDIC certificate) was necessary since the
government's evidence in chief had proved that FNBSM was a financial
institution within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1344, 2 and 20. The admission
of the certificate cured the possibility of error. The evidence was relevant,
admissible, technically adequate, and helpful to the jury in determining
defendant's guilt or innocence. There was nothing about the character of the
evidence or the manner of its admission to distort the importance of the
evidence or prejudice defendant's case. In truth, the fact of FDIC insurance was
never disputed and as has been noted in a case on point:
17 trial court has some interest in seeing that justice is done and in seeing that all
The
the facts are presented ... the court's exercise of discretion should not be disturbed.
The evidence in question was in effect a formal matter and the defendant ought not
to be allowed to utilize the inadvertence in order to gain an unjust result.
18
United States v. Bolt, 776 F.2d 1463, 1472 (10th Cir.1985) (citations omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the government to
reopen its case to present the FDIC certificate.
19
The district court also permitted the same government witness to offer rebuttal
evidence during the course of his testimony rather than requiring him to return
after the defense had rested its case. Since no objection was made to the order
of witnesses, and since defense counsel actually consented to the procedure,
this decision is reviewed under the plain error standard. United States v.
Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1277 (4th Cir.1995); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b).
20
Plain error has been given the following meaning by this court:
21
[T]here
must be (1) an error, such as deviation from a legal rule; (2) the error must
be plain, meaning obvious or, at a minimum, clear under current law; (3) the error
must affect substantial rights--in other words, the error must be so prejudicial as to
affect the outcome of the proceedings in the district court; and, finally, (4) the
reviewing court must determine if the error " 'seriously affects the fairness, integrity
or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' "
22
Castner, 50 F.3d at 1277 (quoting United States v. Olano, 113 S.Ct. 1770,
1777-79 (1993)) (other citations omitted). Defendant bears the burden of proof
with respect to prejudice of his rights. Olano, 113 S.Ct. at 1778.
23
The defendant has offered no factual basis for his assertion of plain error. His
speculation that the sequencing of the government witness, at a time when
defense counsel was uncertain as to whether he would call additional defense
witnesses, confused the jury and implied that the government witness was a
defense witness extends credulity beyond reasonable bounds. At the time the
government witness was called, the prosecutor stated to the court and jury, "the
United States calls one additional witness, a Mr. Candela." Appellee's Brief at
30. The prosecutor then proceeded to examine the witness. This court will
presume jurors compos mentis unless a contrary showing has been made. The
district court did not commit plain error either in sequencing the government's
witness or in failing (without objection or request from defense counsel) to
instruct the jury concerning the sequencing.
24
Finally, the court addresses the defendant's claim that the district court's
"willful blindness" instruction constituted prejudicial error. The defendant did
not object to the trial court's instruction during the charge conference or after
the instructions were given. Failure to object below once again calls for review
pursuant to the plain error standard. United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995,
1001 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 (1982).
25
The instruction given is taken from 1A L. Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury
Instructions, Instruction No. 44-5, and reads as follows:
26 a practical matter, then, in order to sustain the charges against the defendant, the
As
government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that his conduct
as a participant was calculated to deceive and nonetheless, he associated himself
with the alleged fraudulent scheme.
27 government can also meet its burden of showing that a defendant had actual
The
knowledge of falsity if it established beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with
deliberate disregard of whether the statements were true or false, or with a conscious
purpose to avoid learning the truth. If the government establishes beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard for the truth, the
knowledge requirement would be satisfied unless the defendant actually believed the
statements to be true. This guilty knowledge, however, cannot be established by
demonstrating that the defendant was merely negligent or foolish.

28
Id. (emphasis added).
29
On appeal, for the first time, the defendant asserts this instruction
unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. This court has
already rejected such an argument. United States v. Whittington, 26 F.3d 456,
462 (4th Cir.1994). The instruction bears no language which could arguably
suggest any burden of proof is shifted to defendant.
30
On appeal, for the first time, the defendant also asserts that such an instruction
is improper where the evidence supports both a finding of actual knowledge
and a willful blindness to avoid learning the truth. "[W]hen there is evidence of
both actual knowledge and deliberate ignorance, as in the case at bar, a willful
blindness instruction is appropriate." United States v. Mancuso, 42 F.3d 836,
846 (4th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Schnabel, 939 F.2d 197, 204 (4th
Cir.1991)) (emphasis in original). The record contains abundant evidence to
support a jury finding of actual knowledge, as well as a deliberate avoidance.
Thus, the instruction was proper.
31
The defendant has had a fair trial free of prejudicial error. The judgment of the
lower court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED

United States v. Lee B. Phillips, 76 F.3d 376, 4th Cir. (1996)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Lee B. Phillips, 76 F.3d 376, 4th Cir. (1996)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Lee B. Phillips, 76 F.3d 376, 4th Cir. (1996)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

76 F.

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

ARGUED: Walter Stephen Booth, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant.

We first address the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the

Both the government and defendant presented lengthy and comprehensive

The nature and extent of defendant's involvement, if any, was disputed by

Defendant's argument in sum on this point is that the government's evidence

was inaccurate, inconsistent, and unreliable.

We next determine whether the lower court committed prejudicial error in

After the government rested, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal

Inasmuch as defendant lodged a timely objection to the granting of the

demonstrating that the defendant was merely negligent or foolish.

Id. (emphasis added).

You might also like