United States v. Regan Reedy ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4108
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGAN DWAYNE REEDY, a/k/a Wegani Diweini Klandag Anisahoni,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 18-4109
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SUSAN ANNETTE REEDY, a/k/a Susani Aneti Anisahoni,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:17-cr-00025-JPJ-1; 7:17-cr-00025-JPJ-2)
Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Regan Dwayne Reedy, Susan Annette Reedy, Appellants Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Regan Dwayne Reedy and Susan Annette Reedy were convicted by a jury of
concealment in bankruptcy, 18 U.S.C. § 152(1) (2012) (two counts); false declaration in
bankruptcy, 18 U.S.C. § 153(3) (2012) (two counts); and, false oath in bankruptcy, 18
U.S.C. § 152(2) (2012) (total of six counts). In addition, Regan Reedy was convicted of
conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012). Regan was sentenced to
108 months’ imprisonment; Susan was sentenced to 78 months. In their consolidated
appeals, the Reedys appear to generally challenge the district court’s subject matter
jurisdiction as well as venue.
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and have found no reversible
error. The district court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction over federal criminal
cases, 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2012), and venue in the Western District of Virginia was proper,
see Fed. R. Crim. P. 18. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments below. We deny Susan
Reedy’s motions for an audio recording of the trial and for immediate release, and we
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3