Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321204610/United-States-v-Agnew-4th-Cir-2005
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:04:48+00:00

Document:
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for the United States.
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for the United States.
years, Michael Agnew left to start his own company in 1986.
issues, which we granted by order entered April 15, 2005.
of a general contractor to a financial institution.
being disputed in whole or in part.
entailed greater flexibility in terms of financing.
program in January of 1996.
Agnew signed several iterations of the CFM agreement.
representation to the bank that all receivables assigned and sold.
Ritchie Curbow Construction Company (RCCC) in June of 1999.
in services AGM rendered to RCCC.
AGM the concrete subcontract, its bid had been rejected.
amount to AGMs reserve account.
Agnews withheld payments from their employees 401(k) plans.
Putnam Investments (Putnam) until the summer of 1998.
attention, she responded, I guess Ill have to deal with it now.
who had resigned, had perhaps not taken care of it.
with Putnam, which she did.
to return Putnams calls following up on the agreement.
look into why his 401(k) plan was not being funded.
AGMs financial condition continued to worsen.
unable to meet its payroll.
collapse in the media, and the criminal prosecutions ensued.
court annnounced its verdicts orally from the bench.
which carried a range of 108 to 135 months imprisonment.
of the most benign cases of fraud the Court has ever seen.
range of 24 to 30 months.
Resource Bank and its third largest shareholder.
whom AGM regularly performed work.
Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.
that their waiver was not knowing and voluntary.
the meaning of Rule 33(b).
Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b).
verdict or finding of guilty.
after they were found guilty, was untimely.
affirming that the facts referred to had no bearing on his verdict.
Kirk and Hoffler were two of the developing partners.
the partnership or involvement with it after January of 1992.
judgment of acquittal and for a new trial.
Wyatt v. United States, 591 F.2d 260, 265 (4th Cir.
denying the Rule 33 motion.
on partiality or bias for an abuse of discretion.
Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 237 (4th Cir. 1997).
evidence, but untimely if it were not. Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 33.
partiality or bias does not rise to the level requiring recusal.
impartiality, not whether the judge is in fact impartial. Id.
(quoting In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987)).
F.3d 279, 287 (4th Cir. 1998)).
the integrity of the jurys verdict in the completed trial. Id.
See DeTemple, 162 F.3d at 287.
circumstances might reasonably question the judge's impartiality."
Cherry, 330 F.3d at 665 (internal quotation omitted).
by refusing to recuse himself in this case.
proceeding and had called that party a fine man on the record.
trial, and the judge had responded with a letter of appreciation.
Cherry, 330 F.3d at 666.
the facts of this case would not question the judges impartiality.
consisting of a prior partnership with Daniel Hoffler and A.
developers, including Mr. Hoffler and Mr. Kirk.
the fraud committed in this case.
before the Agnews were indicted.
later affiliated with corporate entities injured by the Agnews.
not reasonably question the judges impartiality in this case.
most favorable to the Government, to support it.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
of their children, and acquitted them on 4 counts.
v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)).
facts proven to those sought to be established.
Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
evidence faces a heavy burden.
F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th cir. 1997).
confined to cases where the prosecutions failure is clear.
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978)).
was an accepted course of dealing under the CFM program.
However, this argument provides little aid to the Agnews.
United States v. Brandon, 298 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir.
only upon the submission of a valid invoice.
the invoice does not qualify for payment.
That condition is met here.
an indisputable mutual departure from the written agreement.
Dallas Aerospace, Inc. v. CIS Air Corp., 352 F.3d 775, 783 (2d Cir.
2003) (discussing New York law) (internal quotations omitted).
when an audit revealed their fraud.
that practice in the first place.
payments from the 401(k) plan.
might be motivated to lie.
The record belies both assertions.
The evidence against Barbara Agnew is stronger.
plan and to start making regular payments again.
United States v. Wiseman, 274 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.
AGMs mandatory contributions from its employees 401(k) plan.
of judicial bias, and their motion for a judgment of acquittal.
191.Schmid & Oberly, Inc. vs. RJL Martinez Fishing Corp.

References: v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.