United States v. Dennis Paulsen
684 F. App'x 342
4th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Dennis O. Paulsen was tried by jury and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 641 for knowingly accepting improper benefit payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Social Security.
- The alleged scheme involved recurring embezzlement-like conduct spanning 1997–2015; indictment returned in 2015.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues; Paulsen filed a pro se supplemental brief. The government did not respond.
- On appeal Paulsen raised six principal challenges: statute of limitations, venue, limits on cross-examination, refusal to give four jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence (intent), and reasonableness of sentence (41 months).
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the issues (various standards: de novo for venue and sufficiency, abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and sentence reasonableness) and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Paulsen's Argument | Government's/Trial Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations | Conduct outside five-year window should be time-barred | Scheme was continuing from 1997–2015, tolling limitations | Affirmed: continuing offense; limitations not a bar |
| Venue | Trial in District of SC improper (offense began in VA) | Offense completed/continued in SC; §3237 allows prosecution where begun, continued, or completed | Affirmed: venue proper in District of SC |
| Limits on cross-examination | Court improperly curtailed cross-examination on divorce, administrative hearing, income | Court acted within broad discretion to limit prejudice, confusion, repetition, relevance | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion |
| Jury instructions | Court should have given four instructions (e.g., disability requirements) | Disability was not contested in the relevant way; issue at trial was overpayment/entitlement amount | Affirmed: requested instructions not required or material |
| Sufficiency of evidence (intent) | Government failed to prove intent to convert or guilty state of mind | Inconsistencies in Paulsen’s statements/behavior and lack of merit to entrapment defense supported inference of intent | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for conviction |
| Sentence reasonableness | 41-month sentence was unreasonable | Sentence within Guidelines; court considered §3553(a); presumption of reasonableness applies | Affirmed: procedurally and substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 373 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 2004) (continuing-offense tolling for recurring embezzlement schemes)
- United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for venue dismissal)
- United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2006) (district court’s latitude to limit cross-examination)
- United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard for refusal to give jury instructions)
- United States v. Barefoot, 754 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2014) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence review standard)
- United States v. Cornell, 780 F.3d 616 (4th Cir. 2015) (substantial evidence and intent inference discussion)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard and procedural/substantive reasonableness in sentencing)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)