Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207561/United-States-v-Gary-Gillion-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:13:13+00:00

Document:
N.Y. Attorney General's Office's complaint against former State Fair Director Peter Cappuccilli Jr.
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Duncan wrote the opinion, in which Judge Gregory and Judge Wilson joined.
OLEARY & ASSOCIATES, INC., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
branches complied with company policies.
Prior to becoming a regional manager at CitiCapital, Gillion worked with a number of trailer leasing companies.
its Dallas, Texas headquarters when the events leading to Gillions convictions transpired.
the lease-to-own contract profits outright.
that he had no plans to take his business elsewhere. J.A. 486.
could override credit determinations and give customers additional credit. J.A. 679.
City, signed a lease-to-own agreement with Baker. The agreement named eight forty-eight-foot trailers by serial number.
same purchase plan" as his previous CitiCapital contract. J.A.
would be invoiced and an address for Capital City.
As of October 28, 2003, however, neither Gillion nor Capital City owned the eight trailers named in the Baker lease.
approve a $16,000 sale of the eight named trailers from CitiCapital to Capital City, at $2000 per trailer. This sale represented a $1241 loss for CitiCapital. The "used bill of sale"
identity, he forged his brother-in-laws nameJames B.
$27,000 in profits from the Baker deal.
Capital City while working for CitiCapital. J.A. 620.
substantive mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341.
forty-eight-foot trailers Gillion contracted with Baker to lease.
e-mail written by Gillion in which he informed a former CitiCapital customer that Capital City was CitiCapitals "sister"
counts of substantive mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
underlying Count One, conspiracy to commit mail fraud.
months imprisonment, three years of probation, and restitution to XTra of $20,958.06. J.A. 1185-88. This appeal followed.
proffer session and whether sufficient evidence supported Gillions mail fraud convictions. We consider each issue in turn.
overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational,"
obtained during the proffer interview.
breach. See United States v. Liranzo, 944 F.2d 73, 77 (2d Cir.
contracts); United States v. Chiu, 109 F.3d 624, 625 (9th Cir.
ambiguities against [the] draftsman," Maersk Line, Ltd. v.
Agreement "contemplates the possibility of a breach and trial"
in its provisions regarding the consequences of breach, making clear that it does not lapse post-indictment. Appellees Br.
generally requires that the polygraph must be taken preindictment." J.A. 173.
swayed by the error." Cloud, 680 F.3d at 401 (internal quotation and citation omitted); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).
that can be admitted against [a defendant]," United States v.
have returned a verdict of guilty absent the confession," id.
(quoting United States v. Jones, 913 F.2d 174, 177 (4th Cir.
since he received credit for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G.
preserve a legal claim. S.J.A. 10.
statements, their admission was harmless.
310, 317 (4th Cir. 2008). "We will uphold the verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it is supported by substantial evidence." Id.
fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
(internal quotation and citation omitted).
F.3d 228, 232 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 1341).
infected each payment with the same wrong." Appellees Br.
support the jurys guilty verdict.
property rights are concerned," id. (quoting McNally v.
be assigned, traded, bought, or otherwise disposed of." Id.
(quoting United States v. Mancuso, 42 F.3d 836, 845 (4th Cir.
exclusive use," id., or "the intangible right to control the disposition of [his] assets," Gray, 405 F.3d at 234.
property. We conclude that it did.
$27,000 in profits from the Baker contract alone.
presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that CitiCapital had a property interest in the Baker lease-to-own payments.
lease-to-own contract proceeds. We disagree.
the Baker trailers. In a further attempt to conceal and misrepresent his identity, Gillion forged his brother-in-laws signature on the Baker trailer bill of sale.
that CitiCapital and Capital City were "sister organizations,"
further inquiry into a material matter.
the specific intent to defraud.
409 F.3d at 232 (quoting Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S.
scheme." Pereira, 347 U.S. at 8-9; see also United States v.
F.2d 629, 636 (4th Cir. 1981).
conviction for conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
the agreement. United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir.
of the agreement within the statute of limitations.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.