UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4245

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

IRVINE JOHNSTON KING, a/k/a Irvine Johnson King,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-4246

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AISHA RASHIDATU KING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00180-CMH-1; 1:12-cr-00180-CMH-2)

Submitted: November 25, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric A. White, John P. Elwood, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellants. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States 

Attorney, Timothy D. Belevetz, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Irvine Johnston King and Aisha Rashidatu King 

(collectively, “the Kings”) were convicted following a jury 

trial of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012), numerous counts of health care fraud, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (2012), and two counts of 

aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A 

(2012). In these consolidated appeals, the Kings argue that the 

district court erred in responding orally to the jury’s request 

for a written copy of the jury instructions pertaining to the 

statutory elements of the Kings’ offenses. We disagree and 

affirm.

Because the Kings timely objected, we review for an 

abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to respond to 

the jury’s request and the form of that response. United States 

v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 244 (4th Cir. 2007). Likewise, a 

district court’s decision not to provide a jury with a written 

copy of the instructions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Jones, 353 F.3d 816, 818 & nn.2-3 (9th Cir. 

2003) (collecting cases). “In responding to a jury’s request 

for clarification on a charge, the district court’s duty is 

simply to respond to the jury’s apparent source of confusion 

fairly and accurately without creating prejudice.” Foster, 507 

F.3d at 244 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). 
4

“The particular words chosen, like the decision whether to issue 

any clarification at all, are left to the sound discretion of 

the district court,” United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641, 646 

(4th Cir. 1995), and “[a]n error requires reversal only if it is 

prejudicial in the context of the record as a whole.” Foster, 

507 F.3d at 244.

Here, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion. The Kings identify no legal error in the 

district court’s response to the jury’s request for 

reinstruction, and the district court’s comments primarily 

tracked the relevant portion of the court’s original jury 

instructions, to which the Kings did not object. Accordingly, 

the record does not support the partiality the Kings suggest. 

See United States v. Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 977-78 (4th Cir. 

1998); Smith, 62 F.3d at 645-46; United States v. United Med. & 

Surgical Supply Corp., 989 F.2d 1390 (4th Cir. 1993).

Also unavailing is the Kings’ reliance on United 

States v. Van Dyke, 14 F.3d 415 (8th Cir. 1994), and suggestion 

that the district court left the jury hopelessly confused, 

improperly deprived of written instructions, and biased by the 

court’s comments during trial. Assuming for the sake of 

argument that the Kings’ charges were as complicated as they 

claim, the jury never requested a full written copy of the jury 

instructions, and the Kings expressly agreed with the district 
5

court’s refusal to provide such — a sharp break with the facts 

of Van Dyke. See id. at 423. Also unlike Van Dyke, the jury 

here did not seek further clarification following the district 

court’s reinstruction, and thus there was no clear indication 

that the jury remained confused regarding the elements of the 

Kings’ offenses. Id.; see United States v. Burgess, 684 F.3d 

445, 453-54 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 490 (2012); see 

also United States v. Glover, 681 F.3d 411, 423 (D.C. Cir.), 

cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 548 (2012), and 133 S. Ct. 559 (2012), 

and 133 S. Ct. 568 (2012); United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 

792-93 (5th Cir. 1996). Further, the record also belies the 

Kings’ claim that the district court’s comments during trial 

signaled incredulity of the Kings’ defense. For these reasons, 

we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion 

in responding to the jury’s request for reinstruction. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED