Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/321206848/United-States-v-Lee-Farkas-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:19:15+00:00

Document:
Ticknor - FACTA "advertising injury"
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
in which Judge Motz and Judge Wynn joined.
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Charles F.
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
States Securities and Exchange Commission.
created to rescue distressed financial institutions.
the sale or transfer of Farkass assets pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
10, 2010, the district court appointed William B. Cummings, Esq.
to represent him under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C.
we have to get this case moving. J.A. 84.
(Count 1); six counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
jurisdiction over Farkass timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1291.
dismissed on the Governments motion during trial.
We begin by addressing Farkass Sixth Amendment arguments.
Assistance of Counsel for his defence. U.S. Const. amend. VI.
v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (1998).
867, 875 (2d Cir. 1990).
(LMB), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100916 (E.D. Va. Sept. 10, 2010).
undertook a thorough analysis of each of the Platt factors.
quotation marks omitted) (citing Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S.
has failed to make these showings here.
of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process.
more with privilege than with documents. J.A. 293.
material even earlier than the courts discovery order required.
continuance cannot be described as unreasoning and arbitrary.
is not entitled to relief on this ground.
right to counsel of a defendants choosing is not absolute . . .
control the administration of justice. Id. (citations omitted).
its calendar, Appellants Br. at 23 (citing United States v.
did not abuse its discretion.
discretion, United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 220 (4th Cir.
United States v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 239 (4th Cir. 1998)).
failure to further develop this issue. Appellants Br. at 35.
that it forecloses his Sixth Amendment argument.
v. McMillon, 14 F.3d 948, 956 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Smith v.
v. Gravely, 840 F.2d 1156, 1163 (4th Cir. 1988) (citing Fed. R.
witness. McMillon, 14 F.3d at 956.
frankly, you can have fraud without a big loss. J.A. 1693-95.
not err in limiting Farkass cross-examination of Luria.
v. Herder, 594 F.3d 352, 359 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S.
in the most important of his or her own affairs. J.A. 1859-60.
required to define beyond a reasonable doubt for the jury.
See, e.g., United States v. Walton, 207 F.3d 694, 698 (4th Cir.
to seek the truth from the evidence received during the trial.
J.A. 2042. Notably, Farkas initially requested the seek-thetruth instruction, but later withdrew his request.
doubt burden of proof. Id.
at least twenty-six separate occasions in the jury instructions.
To determine whether jury instructions require reversal . . .
we assess the instructions as a whole and view them in context.
burden, or otherwise amounted to error.
for clear error. Herder, 594 F.3d at 363-64.
and forfeiture of substitute assets pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
forfeiture where civil forfeiture is authorized.
challenge the forfeitability of these funds on appeal.
due-from-shareholder and due-from-3201 Partnership accounts. Id.
courts, see United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1313 (D.C.
United States v. Benyo, 384 F. Supp. 2d 909, 914 (E.D. Va.
funds indirectly as a result of his crime. Farkas, 2011 U.S.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.