United States v. Johnson , 305 F. App'x 74 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5056
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KARL KJ JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (8:07-cr-00098-GRA-1)
Submitted: August 29, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian W. Shaughnessy, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Kevin F.
McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, David C. Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Karl KJ Johnson was found guilty by a jury of wire fraud
under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp. 2008), and was sentenced to
eighty-seven months of imprisonment. On appeal he raises three
issues, whether: (1) irrelevant and prejudicial evidence improperly
associated him with criminal conduct; (2) his conviction was
supported by substantial evidence, and (3) his sentence was imposed
in conformance with the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and was
disparate from other defendants. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
First, we find no clear abuse of discretion by the
district court by allowing background testimony related to the
Government’s investigation of complicated financial fraud. United
States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1104 (4th Cir. 1992). Nor do we
find reversible error by the district court under either the
hearsay rule, United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir.
1985), or Fed. R. Evid. 403 and related rules. United States
v. Heyward, 729 F.2d 297, 301 n.2 (4th Cir. 1984).
Second, viewing the evidence as required,
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), we find there was
sufficient evidence to support Johnson’s conviction for wire fraud.
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996). The
Government proved both elements required to sustain the conviction.
See United States v. Curry, 461 F.3d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 2006)
2
(noting that wire fraud has two essential elements: (1) the
existence of a scheme to defraud and (2) use of wire communication
in furtherance of that scheme).
Finally, the district court’s eighty-seven month sentence
was not an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007) (stating review standard). Johnson received a
sentence within his properly-calculated advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range, which is entitled to a presumption of
reasonableness. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir.
2008); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007)
(upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines
sentence). Johnson has failed to rebut the presumption of
reasonableness by showing that the sentence was unreasonable when
measured against the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008)
factors.
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to submit
the case on briefs and affirm. 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
3