Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321205962/United-States-v-Bennie-MacK-Jr-4th-Cir-2011
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:27:47+00:00

Document:
John Doe 6 v. The Pennsylvania State University et al.
Macks attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
a pro se reply brief.
the outcome of the proceeding.
basis for a bias or partiality motion.
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
he has been sued by a defendant in a criminal case.
States v. Watson, 1 F.3d 733, 735 (8th Cir. 1993).
Belue, 640 F.3d at 574.
abuse his discretion in not recusing himself.
interest of his former standby counsel.
If he does so, then prejudice is presumed.
existence of a conflict of interest.
record does not conclusively show counsel was ineffective.
denying his motion to dismiss a juror for cause.
to the law and fairly judge the evidence.
Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 219 (4th Cir. 2006).
burden of proving partiality is upon the challenger.
States v. Turner, 389 F.3d 111, 117-18 (4th Cir. 2004).
district court did not abuse its discretion.
judgment of acquittal de novo.
F.3d 756, 762 (4th Cir. 2010).
F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
(quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978)).
in furtherance of that scheme.
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S.
circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence.
States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 666 (4th Cir. 2001).
they will be used for others constitutes a scheme to defraud.
See United States v. Hawkey, 148 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 1998).
evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.
clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.
evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.
of that evidence during his criminal trial.
221 F.3d 656, 663 (4th Cir. 2000).
Macks motion to dismiss the indictment.
denying him a second continuance to review discovery materials.
States v. Jackson, 327 F.3d 273, 295 (4th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Bennett, 675 F.2d 596, 598 (4th Cir. 1982).
that is arbitrary and irrational.
F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. 2011).
contends the district court erred in calculating loss under U.S.
and in calculating his criminal history category.
States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009).
the sentence requested by either party.
range, and his sentence is reasonable.
See Allen, 491 F.3d at 193.
that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
proceed pro se on appeal and to strike the Anders brief.
him refiling the motion at the appropriate time.
state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.