Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321206543/United-States-v-Byron-Keith-Allen-United-States-of-America-v-Ernest-Robert-Reinhardt-491-F-3d-178-4th-Cir-2007
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:44:03+00:00

Document:
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reinhardt raises numerous issues concerning his seventy-month sentence.
financing companies, equipment-lease financing for various customers.
scheme, Reinhardt's leadership role, and Allen's involvement.
"don't really like it." J.A. 5267.
installed. If they ask if it's been installed, delivered, you say yes." J.A. 5272.
instead they matched the numbers on the form for the particular lease.
provided any of the computer equipment referenced in the lease documents.
through Reinhardt, with Tech Com acting as the purported equipment vendor.
Khrlobian was happy with it.
California who could provide financial reports for CRU for $600 to $1,000.
information about CRU; the reports they purchased were completely fabricated.
requested or received computer equipment in connection with the loan.
four monthly payments on the lease transactions to avoid suspicion of fraud.
report the computers stolen to get out of the lease." J.A. 2965.
After a dispute, Smith ended his relationship with Reinhardt and Washington.
Graphics, which he and Reinhardt used as a lessee in two fraudulent leases.
grandmother nominally owning CRU, because Washington had used her credit.
and Washington] used her father's information." J.A. 3058.
there would have been proof-of-ownership and UCC documents.
invoices or other documents related to the fraudulent lease transactions.
required quantum of evidence of fraudulent intent.
established." United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
Appellants' sufficiency of the evidence claim and sustain the jury verdict.
of both Reinhardt and Allen on wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud.
"The intent to repay eventually is irrelevant to the question of guilt for fraud."
conceal the fraud and "ensnare" other victims).
of discretion." United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 397-98 (4th Cir.2006).
was not misleading. United States v. Scott, 424 F.3d 431, 434 (4th Cir.2005).
by you that the defendant acted in good faith.
fraudulent actions or false representations by him.
sustain no economic loss is no defense to the crimes charged in the indictment.
that they possessed intent to defraud.
causing some loss to another.
deceive, for the purposes of causing some financial or property loss to another."
defraud, the instruction counseled an acquittal.
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises," J.A.
sustain no economic loss is no defense to the crimes charged in the indictment."
defense to fraud. See United States v. Molinaro, 11 F.3d 853, 863 (9th Cir.
1993) (approving of identical instruction), contained in Model Crim. Jury Instr.
evidence in the case." Id.
produced the Tech Com records, those records were not statements by him.
review factual findings made in connection with those claims for clear error. Id.
judgment about guilt or innocence." Id. at 539, 113 S.Ct. 933.
"markedly different degrees of culpability, this risk of prejudice is heightened."
exculpatory evidence in a joint trial that would be available were he tried alone.
defendant's guilt is "dictated by the asserted innocence of the codefendants." Id.
its discretion by denying his motions for severance and a mistrial.
counsel. We reject these arguments in their entirety.
prosecute the claimant for a federal crime." Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S.
of the privilege is not determined by the witness herself, but by the court. Id.
the legitimacy and scope of the witness's assertion of the privilege." Gaskins v.
whether the witness was entitled to assert a blanket privilege.").
ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable on direct appeal.
counsel did not object at this time.
bench conferences," the district court overruled the objection. J.A. 2913.
Appellants do not allege that any prejudice resulted from this arrangement.
(4th Cir.2006). "In considering whether a sentence is unreasonable, we . . .
innocence, caused the court to deny the downward departure.
dismiss this portion of his appeal.
2006) ("The names of his mother and uncle were the means of identification.
out lease applications where guarantors were listed without their knowledge.
identity theft enhancement under 2F1.1(b)(5)(C)(I) of the Guidelines.
error with respect to inclusion of the Telcom leases was harmless.
(explaining "stacking" procedure under 5G1.2).
"stacking" under 5G1.2(d)); United States v. Smalls, 185 Fed.Appx. 218, 22021 (4th Cir.2006) (same).
on reh'g, 362 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.2004), vacated by, 543 U.S. 1097, 125 S.Ct.
enhancements were based on the Guidelines and supported by the evidence.
counsel did not provide effective representation. See King, 119 F.3d at 295.
shown on the record that any deficiency in counsel prejudiced Reinhardt.
the sentencing phase of his trial is not cognizable on direct appeal.
district court did not err in imposing a sentence of seventy months.
of Reinhardt and Allen in their entirety.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.