Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-18-04931/USCOURTS-ca4-18-04931-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Young Yi
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

YOUNG YI, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00224-LO-1) 

Submitted: January 9, 2020 Decided: January 30, 2020

Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Peter L. Goldman, SABOURA, GOLDMAN & COLOMBO, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Brian A. Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew S. Miner, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeremy R. Sanders, Kevin Lowell, Fraud Section, 

Criminal Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; 

G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Ryan Scott Faulconer, Special Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 18-4931 Doc: 49 Filed: 01/30/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM: 

Young Yi was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit health care and 

wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2018) (count 1), six counts of health care 

fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1347 (2018) (counts 2 through 7), conspiracy to 

defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2018) (count 8), and filing a 

false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (2018) (count 9). The district court 

sentenced Yi to concurrent terms of 84 months’ imprisonment on each of counts 1 through 

7 and concurrent terms of 36 months’ imprisonment on counts 8 and 9 and ordered 

restitution in the amount of $10,696,447.86. On appeal, Yi challenges the district court’s 

denial of her Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a) motion for a new trial, arguing that the Government 

violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by producing voluminous documents to 

the defense but not identifying one as “Brady material.” She also challenges the district 

court’s restitution judgment, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support it. 

We affirm. 

Yi waited until her post-verdict Rule 33(a) motion for a new trial to raise the Brady

issue she presents on appeal. Accordingly, we review the denial of that motion for plain 

error only. See United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 490-91 (4th Cir. 2018) (providing 

standard of review); United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 672 (4th Cir. 2001). 

In Brady, the Supreme Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of 

evidence favorable to an accused . . . violates due process where the evidence is material 

either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or the bad faith of the 

prosecution.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. To establish a Brady violation, a criminal defendant 

USCA4 Appeal: 18-4931 Doc: 49 Filed: 01/30/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

“must show (1) that the undisclosed information was favorable, either because it was 

exculpatory or because it was impeaching; (2) that the information was material; and 

(3) that the prosecution knew about the evidence and failed to disclose it.” United States v. 

Parker, 790 F.3d 550, 558 (4th Cir. 2015). Here, Yi fails to identify any favorable and 

material information that the Government did not disclose and does not dispute that the 

Government produced in time for effective use at trial the material within which she 

speculates exculpatory material likely will be found. We reject as without merit Yi’s 

argument that fulfillment of the Government’s obligation under Brady requires it to 

identify exculpatory material, see United States v. King, 628 F.3d 693, 702 (4th Cir. 2011), 

and conclude that Yi did not establish a Brady violation, see United States v. Lopez, 

860 F.3d 201, 217 n.6 (4th Cir. 2017); United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608, 619 (4th Cir. 

2010); United States v. Smith Grading & Paving, Inc., 760 F.2d 527, 532 (4th Cir. 1985). 

Thus, we discern no plain error in the district court’s denial of Yi’s Rule 33(a) motion 

premised on this alleged due process violation. 

With respect to the district court’s restitution order, here the presentence report 

(PSR) established that the losses for restitution purposes sustained by the victims totaled 

$10,696,447.86. The district court adopted the PSR and relied on the information therein 

in ordering restitution. As Yi made no affirmative showing that this information in the 

PSR was not correct, the district court was free to adopt and rely on it in imposing 

restitution. See United States v. Revels, 455 F.3d 448, 451 n.2 (4th Cir. 2006); United 

States v. Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711, 716 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 

195, 210-11 (4th Cir. 1999). Th18-49e undisputed restitution sums in the PSR support the 

USCA4 Appeal: 18-4931 Doc: 49 Filed: 01/30/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

district court’s restitution order, and we therefore reject as without merit Yi’s claim of 

insufficient evidence. 

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

USCA4 Appeal: 18-4931 Doc: 49 Filed: 01/30/2020 Pg: 4 of 4