United States v. Irvine King , 547 F. App'x 349 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4245
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IRVINE JOHNSTON KING, a/k/a Irvine Johnson King,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-4246
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AISHA RASHIDATU KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00180-CMH-1; 1:12-cr-00180-CMH-2)
Submitted: November 25, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric A. White, John P. Elwood, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellants. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States
Attorney, Timothy D. Belevetz, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Irvine Johnston King and Aisha Rashidatu King
(collectively, “the Kings”) were convicted following a jury
trial of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012), numerous counts of health care fraud,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (2012), and two counts of
aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A
(2012). In these consolidated appeals, the Kings argue that the
district court erred in responding orally to the jury’s request
for a written copy of the jury instructions pertaining to the
statutory elements of the Kings’ offenses. We disagree and
affirm.
Because the Kings timely objected, we review for an
abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to respond to
the jury’s request and the form of that response. United States
v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 244 (4th Cir. 2007). Likewise, a
district court’s decision not to provide a jury with a written
copy of the instructions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Jones, 353 F.3d 816, 818 & nn.2-3 (9th Cir.
2003) (collecting cases). “In responding to a jury’s request
for clarification on a charge, the district court’s duty is
simply to respond to the jury’s apparent source of confusion
fairly and accurately without creating prejudice.” Foster, 507
F.3d at 244 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
3
“The particular words chosen, like the decision whether to issue
any clarification at all, are left to the sound discretion of
the district court,” United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641, 646
(4th Cir. 1995), and “[a]n error requires reversal only if it is
prejudicial in the context of the record as a whole.” Foster,
507 F.3d at 244.
Here, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion. The Kings identify no legal error in the
district court’s response to the jury’s request for
reinstruction, and the district court’s comments primarily
tracked the relevant portion of the court’s original jury
instructions, to which the Kings did not object. Accordingly,
the record does not support the partiality the Kings suggest.
See United States v. Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 977-78 (4th Cir.
1998); Smith, 62 F.3d at 645-46; United States v. United Med. &
Surgical Supply Corp., 989 F.2d 1390 (4th Cir. 1993).
Also unavailing is the Kings’ reliance on United
States v. Van Dyke, 14 F.3d 415 (8th Cir. 1994), and suggestion
that the district court left the jury hopelessly confused,
improperly deprived of written instructions, and biased by the
court’s comments during trial. Assuming for the sake of
argument that the Kings’ charges were as complicated as they
claim, the jury never requested a full written copy of the jury
instructions, and the Kings expressly agreed with the district
4
court’s refusal to provide such — a sharp break with the facts
of Van Dyke. See id. at 423. Also unlike Van Dyke, the jury
here did not seek further clarification following the district
court’s reinstruction, and thus there was no clear indication
that the jury remained confused regarding the elements of the
Kings’ offenses. Id.; see United States v. Burgess, 684 F.3d
445, 453-54 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 490 (2012); see
also United States v. Glover, 681 F.3d 411, 423 (D.C. Cir.),
cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 548 (2012), and 133 S. Ct. 559 (2012),
and 133 S. Ct. 568 (2012); United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782,
792-93 (5th Cir. 1996). Further, the record also belies the
Kings’ claim that the district court’s comments during trial
signaled incredulity of the Kings’ defense. For these reasons,
we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in responding to the jury’s request for reinstruction.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5