United States v. Michael Marshall
663 F. App'x 275
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael A. Marshall was convicted by a jury of: (1) conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371), (2) bank fraud and aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1344), and (3) conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)).
- District court sentenced Marshall to 60 months on count 1 and concurrent 96-month terms on counts 2 and 3.
- On appeal Marshall challenged: (a) sufficiency of the evidence as to all convictions, (b) the district court’s jury instruction for the wire-fraud object in the conspiracy count (use of the word “someone” without the modifier “in the conspiracy”), and (c) the district court’s loss-amount calculation under USSG § 2B1.1 (failure to credit victim repayments/recapitalizations).
- Appellate review standards: sufficiency reviewed de novo (verdict sustained if supported by substantial evidence); jury-instruction and sentencing challenges not preserved were reviewed for plain error.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed in all respects, concluding the evidence supported the convictions, the instruction error (if any) was not plain or outcome-determinative, and the district court reasonably adopted the PSR’s loss estimate exceeding $400,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions | Marshall: evidence was insufficient to support convictions on counts 1–3 | Government: trial evidence supported convictions; reasonable juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported all convictions |
| Jury instruction on wire-fraud object (use of “someone”) | Marshall: omission of the modifier “in the conspiracy” permitted conviction even if no conspirator transmitted a wire | Government: instruction was proper; any imprecision was not plain error and did not affect outcome | Affirmed — no plain error and no showing the instruction affected the verdict |
| Sentencing loss amount under USSG § 2B1.1 | Marshall: district court should have credited post-offense payments/capital recovered by victims against loss amount | Government: district court may adopt PSR; loss finding need only be a reasonable estimate by preponderance | Affirmed — district court permissibly relied on PSR and reasonably found loss > $400,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Palomino-Coronado, 805 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Miller, 316 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2003) (preponderance standard for sentencing loss findings)
- United States v. Cloud, 680 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2012) (district court may make reasonable estimate of loss under USSG § 2B1.1)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Revels, 455 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2006) (district court may adopt PSR facts absent defendant’s affirmative showing they are incorrect)