U.S. v. Powell

Summarized by John Bollinger , Boleman Law Firm, PC
13 years 9 months ago

Citation:

U.S. v Powell , Case No.11-4724 (4th Cir. May 16, 2012)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

AFFIRMING the District Court, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not commit reversible error by failing to provide the jury with the Defendant's three specific jury instructions. Additionally, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals did not find evidence to support any prosecutor misconduct or ineffective assistance of defense counsel and did not find error in refusing to apply a mitigating adjustment in sentencing. The first jury instruction requested included "materiality" as one of the elements of 18 U.S.C. §1519. The 4th Circuit held that the plain reading of the statute does not require the government prove "materiality of the falsification" as an element of the crime. The second jury instruction requested by the Defendant was to include an "advice of counsel" defense. The 4th Circuit found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying this request due to the lack of evidence to support the request. The third jury instruction requested by the Defendant was for a determination that a statement made by the Defendant was "true as a matter of Law." The 4th Circuit found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying this request since the jury could come to a different conclusion from the evidence presented.

Procedural context:

Richard Powell proceeded by jury trial and appealed his conviction and sentence from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.

Facts:

The charges against Richard Powell arose from certain fraudulent activities directed by Michael Pavlock. Powell's specific actions arose from his involvement as a managing member of a Fayette Investment Acquisitions, LLC ("FIA") and from a business transaction related to Golden Investment Acquisitions, LLC ("GIA"). FIA and GIA were both under the control of Pavlock. In March of 2006, GIA negotiated the purchase of certain vehicles from Mr. and Mrs. Gratz. In December of 2006, Powell met with the Gratz's accountant and represented that FIA was entitled to receive title to the vehicles. Title to the vehicles were transferred to FIA without consideration or authority. Approximately seven months later, pursuant to Pavlock's direction, Stephen Graham, an associate of Pavlock, filed a Chapter 11 on behalf of GIA. GIA's schedules failed to disclose the acquisition or ownership interest in the vehicles. A Trustee was appointed in the case. Powell attempted and failed to purchase GIA's assets from the Trustee, after several check's did not clear due to insufficient funds. The Trustee learned of the Gratz transaction in the summer of 2008 and during his investigation, the Trustee received a letter drafted by FIA's in-house-counsel, dated January 29, 2009 and signed by Powell. The letter contained two allegedly false statements; those falsehoods form the basis of the charge against Powell. Powell was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment.

Judge(s):

Judge Floyd wrote the opinion, in which Judge Shedd & Judge Keenan joined.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!