Court Opinion

ID: 9381117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:00:57.966345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.126673
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4070      Doc: 39         Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4070

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        FURMAN ALEXANDER FORD,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

                                               No. 22-4210

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        FURMAN ALEXANDER FORD,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00351-FL-1)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                        Decided: March 20, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4070      Doc: 39         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Furman Alexander Ford, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4070           Doc: 39         Filed: 03/20/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

                  In these consolidated cases, Furman Alexander Ford appeals the amended criminal

        judgment entered after a jury convicted him of several mail fraud offenses, in violation of

        18 U.S.C. § 1341; wire fraud offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and aggravated

        identity theft offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), and the district court

        sentenced Ford to 132 months in prison. Ford raises multiple arguments in these pro se

        appeals, 1 including alleging that (1) an error under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269

        (1959), occurred during trial, thereby causing structural error; (2) the district court

        erroneously allowed into evidence testimony regarding the facts underlying Ford allegedly

        issuing a false life insurance policy; and (3) the district court erroneously denied Ford’s

        requests that certain witnesses be subpoenaed to testify at sentencing. Finding no error, we

        affirm.

                  As to Ford’s Napue claim, the record establishes that Ford’s attorney opined that

        such a claim would be frivolous and refused to raise the issue during the district court

        proceedings. To the extent that Ford’s argument could be construed as an ineffective

        assistance of counsel claim, we find that ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear

        on the record. See United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020).

                  1
                      Ford waived his right to counsel before this court.

                                                          3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4070          Doc: 39        Filed: 03/20/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        Accordingly, Ford’s Napue claim should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 2

        See United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016).

                 As to Ford’s contention that the district court erroneously allowed into evidence

        testimony regarding facts underlying Ford allegedly falsifying the issuance of a particular

        life insurance policy, Ford presents no argument as to why the testimony was inadmissible.

        See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We nonetheless find no reversible error on this record. See Fed. R.

        Evid. 404(b)(2).

                 Finally, there is Ford’s assertion of error in terms of witness testimony at sentencing.

        Specifically, Ford sought to present witness testimony to establish that a particular financial

        transaction was not part of his scheme to defraud, which Ford contends would have resulted

        in a lower loss amount for purposes of calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range.

        Contrary to Ford’s argument, however, the transaction did not have to be charged in the

        indictment or decided by the jury to be considered by the district court at sentencing. See

        Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 116 (2013) (“We have long recognized that broad

        sentencing discretion, informed by judicial factfinding, does not violate the Sixth

        Amendment.”).

                 Having considered Ford’s arguments and finding no error, we affirm the amended

        criminal judgment.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                 2
                     We express no opinion as to the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel
        claim.

                                                        4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4070      Doc: 39        Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    5