United States v. Tony Tran , 458 F. App'x 293 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4377
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONY TUNG TRAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00209-LO-1)
Submitted: December 6, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles J. Soschin, LAW OFFICE OF C.J. SOSCHIN, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney,
Inayat Delawala, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Tung Tran appeals his conviction and resulting
eighteen month custodial sentence. A jury found Tran guilty of
six counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2006). The charges arose from a scheme in which Tran used
underfunded or nonexistent checking accounts to pay down his
credit card balances. He then made large purchases and obtained
cash advances during the float period.
Tran asserts that the district court erred in
admitting a chart that included a summary of unfunded transfers
initiated by Tran that were not charged in the indictment. We
review a trial court’s ruling on admissibility of evidence for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146,
153 (4th Cir. 2011). Relevant evidence is generally admissible,
but “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue
delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403. However, “Rule 403 is a
rule of inclusion, generally favoring admissibility.” United
States v. Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260, 264-65 (4th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). When assessing
a Rule 403 challenge on appeal, we “look at the evidence in a
light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative
2
value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.” United States v.
Simpson, 910 F.2d 154, 157 (4th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Voluminous material may be admitted in summary
form if it cannot otherwise be conveniently examined in court.
Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
We find the challenged exhibit to be relevant and not
unfairly prejudicial. The exhibit rebutted Tran’s claim that
the unfunded transfers were the product of a series of honest
mistakes. The summary presentation was necessary for the jury
to conveniently conceptualize and examine Tran’s pattern of
unfunded transfers. Tran fails to convince us that the district
court abused its discretion in admitting the challenged exhibit.
Tran also claims that the district court erred by
denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal because the
evidence was insufficient to prove his intent to defraud the
banks. We review the denial of a motion for a judgment of
acquittal de novo. United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216
(4th Cir. 2006). A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110
F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). The verdict of a jury must be
sustained “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, the verdict is supported by ‘substantial
evidence.’” Smith, 451 F.3d at 216. Substantial evidence is
“evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as
3
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for
the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is clear.”
Beidler, 110 F.3d at 1067 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the prosecution, we find it sufficient to support Tran’s
convictions. The repetitive unfunded transfers immediately
followed by large purchases and cash advances demonstrate that
Tran acted with knowledge of the fraud. His excuse that he was
relying on loans from relatives abroad is incredible in light of
the size of the total transfers relative to the amount of the
purported loans and the fact that Tran did not verify the
receipt of his relatives’ money before forging ahead with
massive transfers of funds. In short, Tran has failed to carry
his heavy burden on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4