Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207331/Bruce-Bereano-v-United-States-4th-Cir-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:59:43+00:00

Document:
William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Diaz joined.
ARGUED: Timothy Francis Maloney, JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
LAAKE, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
130 S. Ct. at 2931.
of mail fraud, which was not affected by the Skilling decision.
The district courts unpublished Opinion is found at J.A. 2337-49.
below, we agree with the district court and affirm.
deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."
to Defraud") further described the scheme in some detail.
the firms coffers by disguising their true nature.
detailed in Paragraphs 7 through 18 thereof.
counts are found in Paragraph 2 of each of those counts.
mailing checks back to the firm in payment of those bills.
to trial before a Maryland jury.
Bereanos behest, to contribute $250 to a political campaign.
lobbying clients identified in the indictment.
firm checks issued in her name and returned them to OHearn.
United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 341 n.14 (4th Cir. 2012).
for those contributions. Donna Robey Spencer, a former legislative assistant for Bereano, managed the Bereano PAC.
falsely characterized on the bills as "legislative expenses."
thereof and offered no explanation for the inconsistencies.
stubs identified two firm checks to OHearn for $300 each.
"legislative entertainment," as well as the phrase "per BCB,"
was then billed to MSSA with the same false notation.
firm in payment of its bill.
made by the firm or its employees.
To avoid confusion by the jury, the district court deferred implementation of its Count Eight ruling until after the jury returned its verdict.
representations or promises." J.A. 1906 (emphasis added).
the first element, and again in defining a "scheme to defraud,"
form reflecting that Bereano was, in each instance, "Guilty."
his convictions and sentence on Counts One through Seven.
WL 553445, at *5 (4th Cir. Aug. 28, 1998) (unpublished).
and use of the mails and wires.
pecuniary fraud theory and the honest services fraud theory.
response to the Supreme Courts 1987 decision in McNally v.
courts had interpreted the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C.
must speak more clearly than it has." Id.
to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."
extensively on 1346 to prosecute "honest services fraud."
clients of their money and property.
"[t]he core of the Governments case was the fraudulent billing scheme, which is primarily about money." Id. at 9.
Bereano has timely noticed this appeal, and we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.
error, questions of law de novo, and "the district courts ultimate decision to deny the writ for abuse of discretion."
United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 251-52 (4th Cir.
States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 205 (4th Cir. 2010).
nobis derives from the All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C.
technical errors." Id. at 911.
U.S. 502, 505 n.4 (1954).
error that is shown must be "of the most fundamental character." United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir.
decision on which he relies, Skilling v. United States, 130 S.
or controversy requirement of Article III. See United States v.
coram nobis relief on basis of McNally).
remedy of coram nobis issues only in extreme cases."
months later, on April 12, 2011.
citation omitted)); United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 527 (2d Cir.
applicable to proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 2255. See United States v.
corpus procedural principles for guidance.
a general verdict that may rest on a legally invalid theory,"
Court remanded Skilling and its companion case, Black v.
388 (7th Cir. 2010) (same).
the conviction may be affirmed.
Id. at 361 (internal quotation marks omitted).
to decide the issue in question." Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S.
was the fraudulent billing scheme" as the only appropriate one.
bill to a third party through the mails with the necessary criminal intent is a classic violation of the mail fraud statute."
*4 (4th Cir. Aug. 28, 1998) (unpublished).
count but convicted them of honest-services fraud.").
"extraordinary" remedy of coram nobis relief is unwarranted.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.