United States v. Reginald Clark, 409 U.S. App. D.C. 160

Clark stole thousands from his employer, manipulating its accounting and wiring funds to himself between 2001 and 2003.
He was indicted on multiple counts of bank fraud, false entry, wire fraud, and conspiracy related to a $40,000 wire transfer and other transactions.
During jury selection, the government used five of six peremptory strikes on black jurors, prompting a Batson challenge by Clark.
At trial, the government presented direct evidence of guilt and a supervisor’s testimony; a $5,500 ATM transaction was admitted over objection.
Clark was convicted on most counts and sentenced to 63 months using the 2010 Guidelines with a two-level aggravating-role enhancement and restitution of about $219,000.
On appeal, the court vacated the sentence for Ex Post Facto violations and remanded for resentencing, while affirming conviction and restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Batson challenge sufficiency	Clark claims race-based strikes violated Batson.	Clark argues the district court erred by not adequately evaluating discriminatory intent.	No reversible error; district court did not clearly err in denying Batson challenge.
Admissibility of ATM evidence under Rule 404(b)	ATM cash deposit is improper propensity evidence.	Evidence is intrinsic and part of the whole story; not an improper 404(b) use.	Harmless, any error did not affect verdict.
Aggravating-role enhancement under § 3B1.1	Enhancement based on conspiracy-discounted conduct and lack of control.	District court properly found Clark as mastermind with control over at least one participant.	Upheld the two-level enhancement; substantial deference given to district court’s findings.
Ex Post Facto application of Guidelines	Using 2010 Guidelines for pre-offense conduct violates Ex Post Facto.	No separate argument beyond what appears in record; standard	Vacate sentence and remand for resentencing under proper Guidelines.
Restitution including acquitted conduct	MVRA restitution fully recoveries including acquitted-conduct losses.	Restitution should be limited to conduct of conviction.	No plain error; restitution affirmed as tied to scheme within offense of conviction.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (strikes based on race prohibited; tripartite test)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (U.S. 2008) (reliance on circumstantial evidence in Batson analysis)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (comparative-analysis arguments evaluated under plain-error standard)
Gooch v. United States, 665 F.3d 1318 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for Batson and required showings)
United States v. Smith, 374 F.3d 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (leader/organizer requirement in § 3B1.1 analysis)
United States v. Graham, 162 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (concluding that no single factor is dispositive for leadership enhancement)
Lawreys v. United States, 653 F.3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (rare plain-error recovery on restitution questions)