UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4482

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TROY AURELIUS TITUS,

Defendant – Appellant,

v.

STEPHANIE OLSEN; RITA MAE CANNIZZARO,

Parties-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:08-cr-00154-RAJ-DEM-1)

Argued: March 22, 2012 Decided: April 13, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Andrew Michael Sacks, SACKS & SACKS, Norfolk, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Michael Calvin Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: 

Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia;
2

Melissa E. O'Boyle, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Troy Titus of mail fraud, wire fraud,

conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and various other 

offenses arising from an operation that bore the hallmarks of a 

Ponzi scheme. On appeal, Titus raises numerous claims, 

challenging pretrial, trial, and posttrial rulings by the 

district court. Finding no error, we affirm.

I.

A.

Because Titus was convicted by a jury, the following facts 

are recited in the light most favorable to the government. See

United States v. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d 742, 746 (4th Cir. 

2011). Prior to the revocation of his law license in 2005, 

Titus ran his own law firm in the Tidewater Region of Virginia. 

Co-conspirator and co-defendant Kristen Cardwell worked with 

him.

In his capacity as an attorney, Titus assumed various

roles. These roles included serving as trustee for the trust 

accounts of many clients, a responsibility that allowed him 

access to the funds in those accounts. He also acted as a real 

estate settlement agent, handling funds from one or more sides 

of real estate transactions. In furtherance of this role, 
4

Titus’s law firm maintained a trust account for real estate 

settlement activities with Monarch Bank (the “Monarch account”).

In addition to his activities as an attorney, Titus led 

seminars on real estate investment, estate planning, and tax 

avoidance. Titus solicited seminar attendees to become clients 

of his law firm and invest funds with him in ventures that often 

involved the purchase of real estate. Titus assured these 

individuals that their investments would be secured by first or 

second liens on other real property.

In his various roles, Titus was subject to certain 

statutes, regulations, and professional rules. For example, 

Titus’s trustee relationship with his clients was governed by, 

inter alia, the Virginia State Bar’s Rules of Professional 

Conduct. As relevant here, the Rules impose a duty on an 

attorney to avoid representation of “a client if the 

representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest” 

unless the client “consents after consultation, and . . . the 

lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to 

provide competent and diligent representation to each affected 

client.” Va. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.7. The Rules go on 

to prohibit certain transactions by an attorney that run 

particular risks of conflicts of interest:

(a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business 

transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an 
5

ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary 

interest adverse to a client unless:

 (1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer 

acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the 

client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in 

writing to the client in a manner which can be 

reasonably understood by the client;

 (2) the client is given a reasonable opportunity 

to seek the advice of independent counsel in the 

transaction; and

 (3) the client consents in writing thereto.

(b) A lawyer shall not use information relating to 

representation of a client for the advantage of the 

lawyer or of a third person or to the disadvantage of 

the client unless the client consents after 

consultation.

Id. at R. 1.8. In addition, Virginia law imposes a duty of 

loyalty on all trustees, requiring each trustee to “administer 

the trust solely in the interests of the beneficiary.” Va. Code 

Ann. § 55-548.02(A).

Titus’s activity as a real estate settlement agent was 

governed by the Virginia Consumer Real Estate Settlement 

Protection Act (“CRESPA”), codified in sections 55-525.16-525.32 

of the Virginia Code, which sets forth the duties and 

responsibilities of real estate settlement agents. CRESPA 

requires real estate settlement agents to hold settlement funds 

in “fiduciary trust . . . accounts,” and to keep the funds 

“segregated for each depository . . . in the records of the 

settlement agent in a manner that permits the funds to be 
6

identified on an individual basis.” Va. Code. Ann. § 55-

525.24(A)(1). CRESPA also requires that “[t]he funds . . . be 

applied only in accordance with the terms of the individual 

instructions or agreements under which the funds were accepted . 

. . [and] disbursed only pursuant to a written instruction or 

agreement specifying how and to whom such funds may be 

disbursed.” Id. at §§ 55-525.24(A)(2), (B). In addition, 

CRESPA prohibits the intentional making of “any materially false 

or misleading statement or entry on a settlement statement.” 

Id. at § 55-525.25.

B.

By the early 2000s, Titus was experiencing serious 

financial difficulties. In addition to significant expenses 

associated with the operation of his law firm, Titus was saddled 

with additional expenses totaling around $65,000 per month. 

Titus had also amassed a running shortfall in the Monarch 

account of approximately $2.5 million. To overcome these 

financial difficulties Titus began defrauding his legal clients 

and real estate investors.

Titus fraudulently obtained funds via three avenues: by 

embezzling funds from his clients’ trust accounts, by misusing 
7

property entrusted to him by his clients,1 and by 

misappropriating funds from his real estate investors. Titus 

began by using the funds to cover his monthly expenses and 

backfill his shortfall in the Monarch account. Later, in 

classic Ponzi scheme fashion, Titus began using more recently 

acquired funds to make payments to earlier victims.

By 2005, Titus’s scheme was unraveling. Multiple clients’ 

accounts were running shortfalls, and Titus owed massive amounts 

to his real estate investors. Complaints by his legal clients 

led to an investigation by the Virginia State Bar. This 

investigation ended with Titus stipulating to his mismanagement 

of trust accounts and agreeing to surrender his law license. 

The FBI began investigating his activities, which led to the 

underlying criminal action.

C.

A federal grand jury indicted Titus for bank fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Count One); conspiracy to commit 

mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count 

Two); wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts Three 

though Twenty-Six); mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 

(Counts Twenty Seven though Thirty-One); promotional money 

 1 For example, on multiple occasions Titus used his clients’ 

property to secure loans from his investors.
8

laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (Counts 

Thirty-Two though Forty-One); and engaging in financial 

transactions with criminally derived property, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Counts Forty-Two though Forty-Nine). Titus’s 

trial lasted approximately six weeks and included testimony from 

over 60 witnesses. These witnesses included victims, clients, 

investors, record custodians, bank employees, law enforcement, 

Titus’s co-conspirator, and Titus himself. A jury convicted 

Titus on the conspiracy count, 16 of the wire fraud counts, two 

of the mail fraud counts, four of the money laundering counts, 

and seven of the financial transactions with criminally derived 

property counts. The district court sentenced Titus to 30 years 

in prison. This appeal followed.

We set forth additional facts below as necessary.

II.

On appeal, Titus claims multiple errors by the district 

court. Titus first argues that the district court erred by 

denying his pretrial motion for a continuance. Titus next 

argues that the district court erred in admitting certain 

evidence during his trial. Titus also asserts that the district 

court violated his right to a fair trial by showing bias against 

his defense counsel. Titus further claims that the district 

court erred in limiting his testimony to just over two full days 
9

of trial. Finally, Titus argues that the district court erred 

in denying his posttrial motion for acquittal. We address each 

of these claims in turn.

A.

We first consider whether the district court erred in 

denying Titus’s pretrial motion for a continuance. Our standard 

of review in this regard is a deferential one. “[A] trial 

court’s denial of a continuance is . . . reviewed for abuse of 

discretion; even if such an abuse is found, the defendant must 

show that the error specifically prejudiced her case in order to 

prevail.” United States v. Hedgepeth, 418 F.3d 411, 419 (4th 

Cir. 2005). “[B]road discretion must be granted trial courts on 

matters of continuances; only an unreasoning and arbitrary 

insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable 

request for delay violates the right to the assistance of 

counsel.” Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983) (quotation 

marks omitted).

Against the foregoing standard, we consider the facts. The 

district court appointed a federal public defender to represent 

Titus following his initial indictment and set the original 

trial date for June 29, 2009. After the grand jury handed down 

a third superseding indictment, Titus moved for, and the 

district court granted, a continuance until October 6, 2009.
10

On August 10, 2009, Titus moved to replace the federal 

public defender with private counsel. The government initially 

opposed the motion, expressing concern with bringing in new 

counsel less than 60 days before trial. Although eventually

withdrawing its opposition, at an August 17, 2009, hearing on 

the motion the government emphasized that it “continue[d] to 

believe that there’s absolutely no way that new counsel coming 

into this case could be prepared to try it in less than 60 

days.” S.J.A. 87. The government voiced concern that were the 

substitution allowed and the October 6 trial date maintained, 

one of two things is going to happen: Either A, Mr. 

Sacks is going to come in on the eve of trial after we 

have put all these arrangements in place and made all

these arrangements for the witnesses to be here, and 

he’s going to say I just realized that I don’t have 

enough time despite my representation before that I 

did; or alternatively, we are going to be back here in 

a few years on 2255 because he had insufficient time 

to get ready.

Id. at 89. In response, Titus’s private counsel assured the

district court that “if the Court ordered that this trial go 

forward on October 6th, then I will be ready. I will do what I 

have to do to be ready.” Id. at 91. The district court 

continued the case despite counsel’s representations, stating:

[R]ecognizing that we are at a stage here where we are 

less than 60 days out from this trial, the Court 

doesn’t want to come back in here and be confronted

with a continuance in this case after everyone is 

keyed up to go and et cetera. So what the Court is 

going to do is the Court is going to on its own 

volition move this case out, move it out approximately 
11

30 days, to be sure that we can deal with what we have 

to deal with here and we won’t have to come back in 

here because of adjustments having to be made because 

of a time schedule.

Id. at 95-96. The district court granted Titus’s motion to 

substitute counsel and sua sponte set November 10, 2009, as the 

new date for trial.

More than two months after the hearing and approximately 

two weeks before the November 10 trial date, Titus’s counsel 

filed a motion to continue. Counsel argued that he could not be 

prepared to try such a complex case without additional time. In 

opposing the motion, the government noted that it had made 

“extensive travel arrangements . . . to organize more than 70 

government witnesses, many of whom are elderly and some of whom 

must travel from abroad for this hearing” and that it had relied 

“on Defense Counsel’s representations that he would be ready,

[and] scheduled . . . other trials based around this trial date, 

making it extremely difficult to find a date even into 2010 that 

would allow for a month-long trial.” J.A. 260-61.

The district court denied the motion by memorandum opinion:

The Court in good part allowed Defense Counsel to come 

into the case at such a late date because of his 

affirmations that he would be ready even at the 

October 6, 2009 trial date if necessary. Defense 

Counsel represented at the continuance hearing that “I 

am more prepared, frankly, in two months than the 

public defenders were in ten.” The Court will rely on 

Defense Counsel’s representations of diligence in 

preparation, given his experience and skill in trying 

cases and the resources he has had available to him 
12

over the past several months. The Court is confident 

that Defense Counsel will provide the Defendant 

effective representation, and finds that on balance, 

no prejudice will result.

Id. at 265 (quoting J.A. 244).

Titus argues that, despite counsel’s insistence at the 

August 17, 2009, hearing that he would be ready for trial on 

October 6--more than a month earlier than the ultimate trial 

date--once his counsel “delved into the case, which was document 

intensive and complicated by the fact that [Titus] was in 

custody pending trial, it became apparent . . . that [counsel]

had underestimated the time he would need to adequately prepare 

a defense with the defendant.” Appellant’s Br. 13. Titus

argues that the district court abused its discretion in allowing 

his counsel only 12 weeks to prepare for a 20-day jury trial on 

49 counts.

Notable, however, is what Titus does not argue. Titus does 

not allege that the government was dilatory in providing 

discovery or in any other way contributed to a lack of 

preparation.2

 Titus points to nothing specific in the trial 

record to demonstrate any prejudice caused by his counsel’s 

supposed lack of preparation. And importantly, Titus does not 

 2 To the contrary, as noted by the district court, the 

government went to great lengths to aid counsel’s preparation. 

See J.A. 262-63.
13

argue that the district court was either “arbitrary” or 

“unreasoning” in denying the continuance, as is required to find 

an abuse of discretion in this circumstance. See Slappy, 461 

U.S. at 11-12. Accordingly, Titus’s argument must fail.

In an excess of caution we note as well that had Titus made 

the appropriate arguments, his contention would still be 

unavailing. We have held that “the burdensome task of 

assembling a trial counsels against continuances, and,

therefore, the trial courts must be granted broad discretion.” 

United States v. LaRouche, 896 F.2d 815, 823 (4th Cir. 1990). 

Here, the district court, both at the hearing at which it 

approved the substitution of counsel and provided for a 

continuance on its own motion and later in denying the 

subsequent continuance, appropriately balanced the interests of 

the defendant with the need to manage its docket, accommodate

the schedule of counsel, and accommodate witnesses who would be 

traveling in from out of town. Thus, the district court was 

neither arbitrary nor unreasoning. Indeed, the 12 weeks 

provided to Titus’s counsel is much more generous than that 

provided in similarly complex cases where we have found no abuse 

of discretion. See, e.g., LaRouche, 896 F.2d at 823-24 (finding 

no abuse of discretion in providing 34 days to prepare for 

complex, multidefendant trial); United States v. Badwan, 624 

F.2d 1228, 1230-31 (4th Cir. 1980) (similar, providing three 
14

weeks to prepare for trial). For these reasons, we find no 

abuse of discretion here.

B.

We now turn to Titus’s evidentiary arguments, beginning

with Titus’s challenge to the admission of his stipulation to 

revocation of his law license. We then turn to his challenge to 

the district court’s taking judicial notice of certain Virginia 

rules and statutes. Both challenges are governed by Federal 

Rule of Evidence 403,3 which allows a district court to “exclude 

relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially 

outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair 

prejudice, [or] confusing the issues.” We have characterized 

this prejudice as “tend[ing] to subordinate reason to emotion in 

the factfinding process.” United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 

 3 Titus frames his challenge to the admission of the 

stipulation to revocation of his bar license as arising from 

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which prohibits the 

introduction of evidence of past bad acts by a person “to prove 

a person’s character in order to show that on a particular 

occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” 

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Such prior bad act evidence is 

allowed, however, to prove, among other things, “motive, 

opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, 

absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Id. at 404(b)(2). 

Titus does not argue that the district court admitted the 

stipulation for an improper purpose, but instead argues that the 

potential for prejudice outweighed the probative value 

associated with that purpose. Thus, Titus’s challenge is more 

properly considered to be arising from Rule 403, rather than 

404(b).
15

997 (4th Cir. 1997). In reviewing a district court’s balancing 

of probative value against potential for prejudice, we have a 

history of “broad deference” to the district court. See, e.g., 

United States v. Myers, 280 F.3d 407, 413 (4th Cir. 2002) (“We 

must review the lower court’s application of this balancing test 

with . . . broad deference.”); United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 

595, 603 (4th Cir. 1998) (“We . . . review a district court’s 

admission of evidence over a Rule 403 objection under a ‘broadly 

deferential standard.’ ” (quoting United States v. Simpson, 910 

F.2d 154, 157 (4th Cir. 1990))). We will overturn a district 

court’s decision to admit evidence in such circumstances only 

“under the most extraordinary of circumstances.” United States 

v. Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369, 1377 (4th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks 

omitted).

1.

We first review the admission of Titus’s stipulation to the 

revocation of his law license. As noted above, the primary 

motive offered by the government to explain Titus’s misdeeds was 

his serious financial straits. Titus had shortfalls in many 

accounts over which he had control. The largest of these 

shortfalls--approximately $2.5 million--was in the Monarch 

account, his law firm’s real estate settlement account. Part of 

the government’s theory was that Titus used investor and client 

funds to try to pay down that deficit.
16

Most of the allegations to which Titus stipulated involved

irregularities and deficiencies in the accounts over which Titus 

had control. For example, paragraphs 14-19 of the stipulation 

deal specifically with shortfalls in the Monarch Account. In 

addition, the stipulation contains descriptions of unsavory

conduct on Titus’s part. For example, it describes instances of 

Titus assuring Virginia Bar officials that he had taken some 

action when, in fact, he had not.

Titus objected to admission of the stipulation, arguing 

that although the parts detailing account shortfalls were 

acceptable, the district court should redact portions describing

his bookkeeping problems and false statements because they would 

prejudice the jury. The government responded that the parts of 

the stipulation with which Titus took issue were essential to 

prove that Titus knew about the shortfalls in the Monarch 

account, and, more broadly, to document his overall financial 

difficulties. After hearing argument from both sides, the 

district court considered the document during a recess and 

ultimately approved its admission. The district court concluded 

that the significant probative value of the stipulation

outweighed the minimal risk of prejudice, especially given that 

it tended to show confusion on Titus’s part, which supported his 

claim that he did not have the specific intent to commit fraud:
17

When you read these paragraphs [of the stipulation], 

these paragraphs in some way tend to affirm what the 

defendant has been saying about the reason he did what 

he did, that he had some confusion with the trust 

accounts in his firm, that he was trying to get it 

straightened out. A lot of these paragraphs are 

dealing with the efforts of, trying to straighten out 

the defendant’s records, which some might argue or 

suggest that that shows the lack of fraudulent intent, 

that he was just having problems with his records, 

which the defendant has argued. So the Court believes 

on balance that it’s appropriate to admit.

J.A. 1435.

Titus argues on appeal, as he did at trial, that the 

prejudicial impact of the stipulation outweighed its probative 

value, and therefore it should not have been admitted. As Titus 

puts it:

The risk for prejudice and misleading of the jury in 

providing the . . . stipulation was simply too great, 

and the district court abused its discretion in 

admitting the materials into evidence and created a

substantial risk that the defendant would be convicted 

based on an uncharged ethical violation during a 

Virginia State Bar investigation.

Appellant’s Br. 18. We disagree. As noted above, a district 

court’s decision to admit evidence in such circumstance will be 

overturned only under the most extraordinary of circumstances. 

Aramony, 88 F.3d at 1377. No such circumstances are present 

here. On the contrary, it is clear that the district court 

thoughtfully balanced the probative value of the stipulation 

against its potential for prejudice, and we will not secondguess that balancing. Accordingly, we reject Titus’s challenge 
18

to the admission of the stipulation to revocation of his law 

license.

2.

We next consider Titus’s challenge to the admission by 

judicial notice of certain Virginia rules and statutes. Central 

to the government’s theory of the case was that Titus committed 

fraud, in part, by failing to fulfill his duties of disclosure 

to his clients and investors. To demonstrate the duties that 

Titus owed to his clients and investors, the government asked 

the district court to take judicial notice of the Virginia Rules 

of Professional Responsibility 1.7 and 1.8 (quoted above), which

created duties to his clients, and CRESPA (quoted above) with 

its associated state regulations, which imposed duties on Titus 

when he acted as a settlement agent for real estate closings and 

held funds in trust for those closings. Titus objected, arguing 

that the statutes were not probative and would confuse the jury:

[T]he danger that is created is that the jury would 

convict him of a crime because they think he violated 

a regulatory, a State Bar standard. That would be 

highly prejudicial. That’s not the law. That’s

simply not the source of criminal liability. It’s

prejudicial. . . . How are they going to understand?

J.A. 787. The district court overruled Titus’s objection, 

stating:

[T]he Court is fully capable of advising this jury of 

what criminal statutes this defendant is indicted on, 

and one of the common instructions is to instruct the 

jury that the defendant is not on trial for any matter 
19

not charged in this indictment. He’s not on trial for 

conflict of interest or misusing escrow funds or any 

regulatory violation. That is not a problem for the 

jury to understand this. But these regulatory matters 

are certainly circumstantially useful and probative in 

establishing whether the defendant acted with intent 

to establish an artifice to defraud.

J.A. 788. In fact, in instructing the jury at the close of 

evidence, the district court explicitly addressed this issue. 

After providing the text of the documents, the district court 

instructed the jury: “During your deliberations you may consider 

these statutes and rules in determining whether the defendant 

violated certain duties as part of the scheme and artifice to 

defraud. However, the court cautions you that the defendant is 

not on trial for violating these statutes.” J.A. 2924.

Titus advances on appeal the same argument made in the

district court. Titus asserts that the statutes and rules were 

“irrelevant to the conduct charged in the Indictment” and were 

prejudicial because there was a high risk that they would 

confuse the jury and that the jury would convict him based on 

violations of state law, rather than the crimes for which he was 

charged. Appellant’s Br. 21. The government disagrees, 

contending that “Titus’s conduct made the Virginia Rules of 

Professional Conduct and the Virginia Code sections governing 

real estate settlements highly relevant,” Appellee’s Br. 53, as 

the indictment included theories of criminal liability covering 

“unlawful conversion of funds held in trust and various breaches 
20

of fiduciary duties to clients that caused economic loss,” to 

which the statutes and rules were directly related, id. at 54. 

The government further argues that the above-noted jury 

instruction cured any potential jury confusion.

Reviewing--with broad deference--the district court’s 

balancing of the probative value of the rules and statutes 

against their potential to confuse the jury, we find no abuse of 

discretion. First, it is clear that the rules and statutes were 

highly relevant to the government’s case. To prove a mail or 

wire fraud violation, the government must generally establish: 

(1) the existence of a scheme to defraud; (2) the use of the 

mails or wires in furtherance of the scheme; (3) a material 

statement or omission in furtherance of the scheme; and (4) 

specific intent to defraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343; United 

States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). A scheme 

or artifice to defraud, in turn, may arise from a failure to 

disclose material information pursuant to a fiduciary, 

statutory, or other legal duty. United States v. Colton, 231 

F.3d 890, 898 (4th Cir. 2000). These rules and statutes 

evidence Titus’s duties to disclose information and are,

accordingly, vital to prove, as the government was seeking to 

do, mail and wire fraud charges based upon a failure to disclose

such information in violation of these duties.
21

Second, the risk of jury confusion does not substantially 

outweigh the probative value of this evidence. Any risk that 

the jury could become confused and render a guilty verdict on 

the basis of a violation of these state rules and statutes, 

rather than on the basis of the federal law upon which Titus was 

indicted, was cured by the district court’s cautionary 

instruction, which we must presume the jury understood and 

followed. See United States v. Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260, 271 (4th 

Cir. 2008).4 Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion to 

take judicial notice of the rules and statutes.

C.

We next consider Titus’s argument that the district court 

violated his right to a fair trial by showing bias against his 

defense counsel. We review a district court’s trial management 

under a broadly deferential standard. See, e.g., United States 

v. Smith, 452 F.3d 323, 332 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that 

questions of trial management are “quintessentially the province 

of the district courts”); United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d at 

 4 Titus’s claim that the district court’s admission of the 

rules and statutes constructively amended the indictment fails 

for the same reason. See Udeozor, 515 F.3d at 271; see also

United States v. Alhalabi, 443 F.3d 605, 614 (7th Cir. 2006) 

(“The admission of evidence . . . intricately related to the 

crimes charged to paint for the jury the complete picture of the 

scheme . . . did not alter the crimes from the ones described in 

the indictment.”).
22

659, 679 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding that the district court has 

broad discretion regarding the interrogation of witnesses and 

has the duty to admonish counsel as part of sound trial 

management).

Titus claims that the district court manifested its bias 

against him by excessively intervening in his defense and making 

adverse comments toward his counsel. He cites examples of the 

district court acting in the absence of objection from the 

government in foreclosing various lines of questioning by his

counsel because of concerns regarding admissibility. Citing 

these interventions, Titus moved for a mistrial, which the 

district court denied. Titus also complains of sounds emanating 

from the jury, which he claims were “a by-product of the 

cumulative interventions and comments made by the trial court 

toward, during, and regarding the defendant’s defense.” 

Appellant’s Br. 37. Notably, Titus does not claim that the 

district court substantively erred in any of its sua sponte 

rulings.

Although a district court “must not create an appearance of 

partiality by continued intervention on the side of one of the 

parties or undermine the effective functioning of counsel 

through repeated interruption of the examination of witnesses,” 

the district court “must exercise reasonable control over . . . 

the presentation of evidence in order to ensure the effective 
23

determination of the truth [and] to avoid needless waste of time 

in the presentation of a case.” United States v. Castner, 50 

F.3d 1267, 1272 (4th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and alterations 

omitted). “ ‘A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom 

administration--even a stern and short-tempered judge’s ordinary 

efforts at courtroom administration--remain immune’ and do not 

establish bias or partiality.” Id. at 1274 (quoting Liteky v. 

United States, 510 U.S. 540, 556 (1994)).

Titus points solely to evidentiary rulings, which he does 

not claim were incorrect, to establish bias. But a district 

court is required, even in the absence of objection, to 

“exercise reasonable control over the mode . . . of examining 

witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those 

procedures effective for determining the truth; [and] (2) avoid 

wasting time.” Fed. R. Evid. 611(a). We cannot accept a 

suggestion that the district court erred by following the 

Federal Rules of Evidence. Cf. Castner, 50 F.3d at 1272 (“We 

find no error in [the district court questioning the relevancy 

of an exhibit], as the court was fulfilling its duty to ensure 

that the proffered exhibits were relevant before admitting them 

into evidence, as required by Fed. R. Evid. 402.”); id. at 1272-

73 (holding that it was not error for “the district court [to] 

attempt[] to maintain control over the presentation of evidence 

in order to help present a clearer set of facts to the jury, as 
24

required by Rules 611(a) and 614(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence”). We therefore find no error in the district court’s 

conduct.

D.

We next consider whether the district court erred in 

restricting Titus’s testimony to slightly more than two full 

days. The government’s presentation of evidence spanned the 

first 12 days of trial. Titus took the stand in his own defense

on day 13. At the end of day 13, the district court asked 

Titus’s counsel how long direct testimony would last. Counsel 

replied that it would take “all day tomorrow [day 14] and maybe 

somewhat on Friday [day 15].” J.A. 3271. The district court 

then informed Titus’s counsel that he would be required to 

finish his direct examination of Titus by the end of day 14. 

After some back and forth, the district court suggested that it 

might allow Titus to testify into day 15. Then, during a 

discussion on day 14 on the progress of Titus’s testimony, the 

district court gave Titus’s counsel a hard deadline to conclude 

Titus’s testimony of 10:45 a.m. (with a start time of 9:30 a.m.) 

on day 15. Titus concluded his testimony at 11:00 a.m. on day 

15. In total, Titus testified for just less than two-and-onehalf days of trial--the exact amount of time counsel initially 

estimated he would need.
25

Titus argues that, in light of the amount of evidence put 

on by the government and the complexity of the case, “the amount 

of time allowed [for him] to testify was grossly inadequate . . 

. and it was an abuse of . . . discretion to impose such time 

restrictions.” Appellant’s Br. 46. We disagree.

As noted above, Federal Rule of Evidence 611 instructs the 

district court to “exercise reasonable control over the mode . . 

. of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) 

make those procedures effective for determining the truth; [and] 

(2) avoid wasting time.” Fed. R. Evid. 611(a). So long as the 

district court gives counsel a full and fair opportunity to 

reach all material points, it is not an abuse of discretion to 

limit the length of testimony. See United States v. Midgett, 

488 F.3d 288, 300 (4th Cir. 2007) (limits on testimony found not 

to be an abuse of discretion when, inter alia, defendant did 

“not contend that the limits placed on his lawyer’s questioning 

of witnesses denied him the opportunity to elicit or attack 

evidence”); see also United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 942, 951 

(7th Cir. 2005) (“Simply stated, a criminal defendant does not 

have an absolute, unrestrainable right to spew irrelevant--and 

thus inadmissible--testimony from the witness stand.”). 

Although we remain cognizant of the importance of allowing a 

criminal defendant to testify fully on his own behalf, Titus 

points to no piece of evidence that he was unable to put before
26

the jury because of the district court’s minimal, at best, limit 

on his testimony. Accordingly, he cannot show that the 

limitation was an abuse of discretion.

E.

We finally consider Titus’s challenges to the sufficiency

of the evidence supporting his convictions. Titus claims the 

district court erred in denying his Rule 29 motion for 

acquittal. Denial of a Rule 29 motion will be affirmed on 

appeal if, “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. 

Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). In assessing the 

denial of a Rule 29 motion, this court considers “circumstantial 

as well as direct evidence, and allow[s] the government the 

benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to 

those sought to be established.” Id. “In reviewing the 

sufficiency of the evidence, we are not entitled to weigh the 

evidence or to assess the credibility of witnesses, but must 

assume that the jury resolved all contradictions . . . in favor 

of the government.” United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 

(4th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks omitted).

Titus challenges the sufficiency of the evidence put forth 

by the government to prove (1) specific intent to defraud for 

the mail and wire fraud counts, (2) the presence of a 
27

conspiracy, and (3) that the money laundering transactions were 

conducted with mail/wire fraud proceeds. Titus’s sufficiency 

challenge encompasses over 20 convictions but spans only five 

pages of his brief. With one exception--Cardwell’s testimony as 

to her role in the conspiracy--Titus points to no specific 

deficiencies in the government’s evidence, relying instead on 

conclusory statements asserting insufficiency. Accordingly, we 

reject Titus’s sufficiency challenges in all respects.

1.

We turn first to the evidence of Titus’s specific intent to 

defraud. “[S]pecific intent to defraud . . . ‘may be inferred 

from the totality of the circumstances and need not be proven by 

direct evidence.’ ” Godwin, 272 F.3d at 666 (quoting United 

States v. Ham, 998 F.2d 1247, 1254 (4th Cir. 1993)).

As to specific intent, the government has clearly met its 

burden, and the district court was correct to deny Titus’s Rule 

29 motion on this issue. Titus’s challenge to the sufficiency 

of the evidence showing specific intent to defraud consists 

entirely of offering another interpretation of his behavior:

The evidence at trial, one by one, was that each 

lender and/or investor entered into an agreement with 

the defendant, and each lender and/or investor had a 

certain expectations [sic] of a particular result. 

There was rarely, if ever, a prior agreement or 

written instructions. Subsequently, a resulting 

dispute about the interpretation of an agreement, 

often oral, or joint venture arose. These 
28

disagreements and/or alleged breaches of contract are 

civil. . . .

The fact that the defendant owes money to a number of 

people does not make his actions criminal. These 

people have legitimate and arguable claims that they 

invested money and did not get it back. There is a 

breach of promise, not a scheme to defraud or intent 

to defraud--the evidence was devoid of either.

Appellant’s Br. 27-28. Even assuming that this interpretation 

is plausible, it does not aid Titus if the government’s 

interpretation is also plausible. It is the province of the 

jury to decide among competing interpretations of the facts 

presented.

There is indisputably support for the government’s 

interpretation of facts, i.e., that they demonstrate Titus had 

specific intent to defraud his victims. The government 

presented a mountain of evidence in this regard, to which Titus 

makes no specific challenge. For example, the government 

presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude

that Titus was attempting to conceal his actions from his 

clients and investors, and thus infer from this an intent to 

defraud. See United States v. Ellis, 326 F.3d 550, 554 (4th 

Cir. 2003) (holding that attempts to conceal evidence showed 

specific intent to defraud). A small sampling of the evidence 

bears this out. The jury received evidence that Titus made out 

a check from a client’s trust account to a real estate company 

and noted on the check, “First Mortgage,” but did not use the 
29

check to buy real estate for the trust, instead depositing it in 

a real estate trust account and using the funds to pay firm 

expenses. When confronted by a colleague, Titus falsely stated 

that he was buying real estate for the trust. The jury also 

heard evidence that Titus presented a form for a client to sign 

that would transfer ownership of certain property from the 

client to Titus. Contrary to custom, Titus did not include a 

description of the property with the form. Titus later attached

to the form a description describing property different from 

what Titus had led the client to believe he was transferring. 

The government also introduced copious amounts of evidence that 

Titus engaged in “lulling” activity, which also evidences a 

specific intent to defraud. See United States v. Kelley, 551 

F.3d 171, 172 (2d Cir. 2009). These examples alone are 

sufficient to support a jury finding of specific intent to 

defraud.

2.

Titus also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

presented by the government to prove that Titus engaged in a 

conspiracy with Cardwell to commit mail and wire fraud. Titus 

claims that the evidence only supported a conspiracy between 

Cardwell and Titus to “ma[ke] certain representations in certain 

documents/loan applications,” but not to commit mail or wire 
30

fraud. Appellant’s Br. 28. This is a distinction without a 

difference.

To prove a conspiracy, the government need not prove that 

each coconspirator engaged in each act of the enterprise. On 

the contrary, it is well settled that a particular coconspirator 

“need not be involved in every phase of [the] conspiracy to be 

deemed a participant” in a single, ongoing conspiracy. United 

States v. Leavis, 853 F.2d 215, 218 (4th Cir. 1988). To prove a 

conspiracy, the government need only show an overlap of key 

actors, methods, and goals, indicating one overall agreement or 

one general business venture. See, e.g., United States v. 

Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 218 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. 

Pratt, 351 F.3d 131, 140 (4th Cir. 2003).

Here, the jury could reasonably conclude that Titus and 

Cardwell were working together in one general business venture 

that depended on mail and wire fraud for its success. Cardwell 

testified that she helped Titus conduct straw purchases of

property to obtain money from mortgage lenders. These funds 

were then used, in part, to make lulling payments to his other 

victims. Evidence also showed that Cardwell assisted Titus in 

defrauding Mary Honning by use of the wires. This evidence is 

sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Titus and 

Cardwell had agreed to participate in a scheme to defraud 

furthered by the use of the mail and wires.
31

3.

Titus’s final sufficiency challenge involves his 

convictions for money laundering. This challenge, however,

relies completely on the earlier challenge to sufficiency of the 

evidence demonstrating Titus’s specific intent to defraud in the 

mail and wire fraud counts. Because that earlier challenge 

failed, this challenge must necessarily also fail.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court in 

all respects.

AFFIRMED