United States v. Brian Gay , 498 F. App'x 335 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-4082
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BRIAN GAY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:11-cr-00106-RAJ-TEM-1)
    Submitted:   October 16, 2012            Decided:     December 7, 2012
    Before KING and    AGEE,    Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
    Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
    PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.    Neil H.
    MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, V.
    Kathleen Dougherty, Robert J. Seidel, Jr., Assistant United
    States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Following a jury trial in the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, Brian Gay was convicted of
    three counts of mail fraud, 
    18 U.S.C. § 1341
    , one count of wire
    fraud,    
    id.
          §       1343,    four     counts      of        conducting    an    unlawful
    monetary transaction, id. § 1957, and one count of making a
    false document, id. § 1001(a)(3).                         He was sentenced to sixty
    months’ imprisonment.               On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency
    of the evidence on these convictions.                         We affirm.
    I
    Gay   was       an     attorney       licensed         to    practice     law    in   the
    Commonwealth of Virginia.                  Before practicing law, Gay worked as
    a real estate agent in the Virginia Beach area and through this
    employment met Daniel Woodside, whom he helped buy a house in
    late   1999.           A    few    years    later,       in    2002,     Gay    also   handled
    Woodside’s       divorce           from     his       wife,    Carla,      the    mother      of
    Woodside’s three children.
    In January 2005, Woodside was diagnosed with terminal lung
    cancer.      In preparation for his death, Woodside asked Gay to
    prepare certain estate documents, including an irrevocable trust
    agreement and a last will and testament.                            Gay complied.      Gay was
    the    trustee      under         the     irrevocable         trust    agreement       and   the
    beneficiaries were Woodside’s three children.                              The irrevocable
    - 2 -
    trust was to be funded by, among other things, Woodside’s life
    insurance policies.
    Woodside died in April 2006.                      Before his death, Gay used
    his position as Woodside’s friend and attorney to orchestrate a
    scheme    to     defraud    the    Woodside        children   out     of     hundreds      of
    thousands of dollars.              Gay’s plan involved stealing the life
    insurance proceeds intended to benefit the health, education,
    and well-being of Woodside’s children and using it for his own
    purposes.         Following       Woodside’s        death,     the        life    insurance
    proceeds were deposited in accounts set up to administer the
    Woodside estate.           As trustee, Gay wrote checks to himself and
    deposited the checks in his own accounts.                     The scheme to defraud
    resulted in the theft of nearly $400,000.00.
    II
    A   defendant       challenging       the     sufficiency      of     the    evidence
    “faces a heavy burden,” as reversal of a conviction is limited
    to “cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.”                                United
    States v. Foster, 
    507 F.3d 233
    , 244–45 (4th Cir. 2007) (citation
    and   internal      quotation       marks    omitted).         Generally,          we    will
    “sustain a       guilty    verdict     that,       viewing    the    evidence       in    the
    light     most    favorable       to   the        prosecution,       is     supported     by
    substantial evidence.”             United States v. Osborne, 
    514 F.3d 377
    ,
    385   (4th     Cir.   2008)       (citation       and    internal     quotation         marks
    - 3 -
    omitted).    Further, we will “not review the credibility of the
    witnesses and assume that the jury resolved all contradictions
    in the testimony in favor of the government.”                       Foster, 
    507 F.3d at 245
    .
    Gay first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the
    mail and wire fraud counts.              To establish a mail fraud or wire
    fraud violation, the government must prove that the defendant
    (1) knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud and (2) used
    the mail or wire communications in furtherance of the scheme.
    United States v. Wynn, 
    684 F.3d 473
    , 477 (4th Cir. 2012).                            To
    establish a scheme to defraud, “the [g]overnment must prove that
    the   defendant[]     acted   with       the   specific       intent   to    defraud.”
    United States v. Godwin, 
    272 F.3d 659
    , 666 (4th Cir. 2001).
    With   respect    to    the     mail     and     wire    fraud    counts,     Gay
    contends that the evidence does not support the finding that he
    had any intent in the spring of 2006 to defraud the Woodside
    children.    Gay’s argument misses the mark.
    Gay produced at least two fraudulent documents prior to
    Woodside’s    death    in     April      2006.       After      fabricating       these
    documents,   which     purport      to    name   Gay    as    the    beneficiary     of
    Woodside’s   life     insurance     policies,        Gay   continued        to   falsely
    represent to numerous parties, including Carla, the children,
    the probate court, the two life insurance companies, and the
    title company involved in the sale of Woodside’s home, that the
    - 4 -
    proceeds were in trust for the benefit of the children.                                Gay
    also falsely represented to the Woodside family in April 2006
    that he would invest the trust money for their benefit, but
    never     invested      a    penny.      This       evidence,     along    with      other
    evidence in the record, clearly supports the jury’s finding that
    Gay had the specific intent to defraud in the spring of 2006.
    Gay next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the
    four     unlawful      monetary      transaction       counts.       At    trial,     the
    government demonstrated that, as trustee of the Woodside estate,
    Gay wrote four checks (one in March 2008, one in November 2008,
    and two in July 2010) from Woodside estate checking accounts to
    himself and deposited these checks in his own accounts.
    To prove a § 1957 violation, the government must show: (1)
    that the defendant knowingly engaged in a monetary transaction;
    (2) that the defendant knew the property involved derived from
    specified unlawful activity; and (3) that the property was of a
    value greater than $10,000.                United States v. Blair, 
    661 F.3d 755
    ,     776   n.1    (4th    Cir.    2011)    (Traxler,    C.J.,       dissenting      in
    part).         The    statute    defines      “monetary    transaction”         as    “the
    deposit,       withdrawal,      transfer,      or    exchange,     in     or   affecting
    interstate       or     foreign       commerce,      of   funds     or     a   monetary
    instrument . . . by, through, or to a financial institution.”
    
    18 U.S.C. § 1957
    (f).            Evidence of a deposit of unlawful proceeds
    in   a    Federal     Deposit     Insurance     Corporation       insured      financial
    - 5 -
    institution is sufficient to satisfy the monetary transaction
    element.        See United States v. Peay, 
    972 F.2d 71
    , 74 (4th Cir.
    1992) (§ 1956).
    Gay’s        first attack on the § 1957 convictions is premised
    on the argument that the government failed to prove a scheme to
    defraud with respect to the mail and wire fraud counts.                                  This
    attack fails for the reasons set forth above.
    Gay’s        next   attack      relates       to   the     interstate      commerce
    component of § 1957.                  He posits that although the government’s
    evidence        on    the   interstate         commerce     element        was   sufficient
    concerning the two checks written to himself in 2008, it was
    insufficient concerning the two checks written to himself in
    2010.       However, Gay failed to raise this argument below in his
    Rule 29 motion, precluding the district court from having the
    first       opportunity      to   opine       on   it.     When    a   defendant     raises
    specific       grounds      in    a    Rule   29   motion,       grounds    that   are    not
    specifically          raised     are    waived     on    appeal.       United    States    v.
    Chong Lam, 
    677 F.3d 190
    , 200 (4th Cir. 2012).                                We therefore
    decline to consider this argument for the first time on appeal. *
    *
    To the extent that an exception to this rule exists in
    situations in which a manifest miscarriage of justice has
    occurred, see Chong Lam, 
    677 F.3d 200
    -01 n.10, this is not such
    a case.     In a light most favorable to the government, the
    government presented ample evidence at trial to allow a
    reasonable jury to conclude that the monetary transaction
    (Continued)
    - 6 -
    Finally, Gay challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on
    the false document count.             To prove a violation of § 1001(a)(3),
    the government must show that (1) the defendant made a false
    writing or document to a governmental agency, (2) the defendant
    acted    knowingly       or    willfully,          and     (3)    the       false     writing     or
    document was material to a matter within the jurisdiction of the
    governmental agency.             United States v. Ismail, 
    97 F.3d 50
    , 60
    (4th    Cir.    1996)    (§     1001).         A    fact    about       a    matter     within    a
    governmental      agency’s        jurisdiction           is      material        if    it   has   a
    natural tendency to influence agency action or is capable of
    influencing agency action.               Id.
    At trial, the government presented evidence that Gay asked
    his    friend,    Tony        Hill,   to    present         a     seventy-page          stack     of
    documents to the investigating federal agents when Hill arrived
    for his testimony before the grand jury.                            Hill complied.            When
    the agents reviewed these materials, they discovered a never-
    before-seen       letter        Gay   purportedly                sent       to   Midland      Life
    Insurance       Company        claiming        that        he,     personally,          was     the
    beneficiary of Woodside’s life insurance proceeds.                                    Because the
    letter    was     both        false   and          material,       substantial           evidence
    support’s Gay’s false document conviction.
    element was satisfied with regard to the two checks Gay wrote to
    himself in 2010.
    - 7 -
    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
    - 8 -