Court Opinion

ID: 995631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:40:08.128414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:58.534920
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                       No. 97-1497

KARL V. DAVID,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-94-39-3)

Submitted: May 19, 1998

Decided: July 21, 1998

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,
United States Attorney, G. Wingate Grant, Assistant United States
Attorney, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Rich-
mond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Karl V. David appeals the district court's order denying his motion
for attorney's fees under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(d)(2)(B) (West Supp.
1998). A jury convicted David in 1994 of making a false statement
to a department or agency of the United States in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1001 (1994). We vacated David's conviction and remanded
for a new trial in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United
States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (holding that element of mate-
riality in § 1001 must be submitted to jury), which was decided while
David's direct criminal appeal was pending. See United States v.
David, 83 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 1996). On remand, the superseding
indictment was reinstated, charging David with the§ 1001 violation
and violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n), 924(a)(1)(A) (1994). A jury
acquitted David on all charges.

David then filed his § 924(d)(2)(B) motion, contending that he was
entitled to attorney's fees because his prosecution was "without foun-
dation." The district court denied David's motion, holding that (1) the
§ 1001 violation did not fall within the purview of § 924(d)(2)(B);
and (2) the remaining charges were not "without foundation" because
there was a valid indictment and because a finding of reasonable
doubt cannot be equated with a finding that a case was without foun-
dation.

We have carefully examined the record, the briefs, and the opinion
of the district court. We agree with the district court that David failed
to satisfy the requirements of § 924(d)(2)(B) and, therefore, affirm the
denial of attorney's fees on the reasoning of the district court. See
United States v. David, No. CR-94-39-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 1997). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2