United States v. G. Martin Wynn
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13346
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Wynn, a professional engineer, fraudulently sealed and transmitted permit-bearing plans for a runway extension project to Oconee County and to the DHEC.
- He cut a valid DHEC permit seal from an older, permitted set of plans and pasted it onto unauthenticated 60-acre runway-extension plans.
- Oconee County approved an NOI and expected permits to be obtained; Wynn failed to procure the permit.
- DHEC later discovered the mismatch between the fraudulent 48-acre plans and the 60-acre revised project, triggering a halt to construction for six months.
- Wynn was convicted of mail and wire fraud; district court sentenced him to 12 months and 1 day and ordered $118,000 restitution based on fees paid during the fraud window.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government proved the mens rea for mail/wire fraud | Wynn argues no proof of intent to harm (specific intent to deprive) | Wynn contends the instruction allowed mere deception without harm | Yes; district court properly required specific intent to defraud and the evidence supported it. |
| Whether the misrepresentation was material | Oconee County relied on the permit representations | Wynn claims reliance was unreasonable due to superseded plans | Yes; misrepresentation had natural tendency to influence and actual reliance by County was shown. |
| Whether the wire-fraud conviction requires convergence of mail and wire elements | Emailed plans to DHEC assisted the scheme | Convergence not clearly required; argument not preserved | No plain-error determination; evidence supported wire-fraud conviction. |
| Whether the loss amount for sentencing/restoration was properly calculated | All fees paid during the fraud period should be included | Only fees tied to permitted tasks should be included | Yes; full invoiced amount during November 2009–February 2010 reasonably estimated loss. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2012) (defines elements of mail and wire fraud; requires scheme to defraud and use of mails or wires)
- Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1987) (defines general understanding of defraud and deceit)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (materiality requires misrepresentation capable of influencing the decision)
- United States v. Painter, 314 F.2d 939 (4th Cir. 1963) (recognizes deception of regulators can form part of a scheme to defraud)
- United States v. Garcia-Ochoa, 607 F.3d 371 (4th Cir. 2010) (discusses materiality and reliance in fraud context)