United States v. Young , 64 F. App'x 899 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 01-4626
    RICKEY G. YOUNG,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                              No. 01-4627
    RICKEY G. YOUNG,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    James P. Jones, District Judge.
    (CR-00-81, CR-00-122)
    Submitted: April 30, 2003
    Decided: June 11, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Barry L. Proctor, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brown-
    lee, United States Attorney, Rick A. Mountcastle, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    2                      UNITED STATES v. YOUNG
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Rickey G. Young was convicted of five counts of willful failure to
    file federal income tax returns, in violation of 
    26 U.S.C. § 7203
    (2000), and one count of criminal contempt, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 401
     (2000). Young’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), raising two potential
    issues for review but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious
    issues for appeal. Young was advised of his right to file a pro se sup-
    plemental brief, but did not do so.
    Counsel first suggests that joinder of the mail fraud counts with the
    tax return counts was not proper under Fed. R. Crim. P. 8, and the dis-
    trict court erred in denying Young’s motion to sever the mail fraud
    counts for a separate trial. We review the district court’s refusal to
    grant a misjoinder motion de novo to determine whether the initial
    joinder of the offenses was proper under Rule 8(a). United States v.
    Mackins, 
    315 F.3d 399
    , 412 (4th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (U.S.
    Apr. 2, 2003) (No. 02-9992). If joinder was proper, review of the
    denial of a motion to sever is for abuse of discretion under Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 14. 
    Id.
     Our review leads us to conclude that the charges were
    properly joined in the superseding indictment and that the district
    court did not abuse its discretion in denying Young’s motion to sever.
    Counsel also raises as a potential issue that the district court erred
    in denying Young’s motion for a new trial after his motion for judg-
    ment of acquittal was granted as to the counts charging mail fraud.
    We review the district court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial for
    abuse of discretion. See United States v. Rhynes, 
    206 F.3d 349
    , 360
    (4th Cir. 1999) (en banc). We conclude that this argument is without
    merit because the evidence supporting the mail fraud counts would
    have been admissible as other crimes evidence under Fed. R. Evid.
    404(b) in a separate trial on the counts charging failure to file income
    UNITED STATES v. YOUNG                          3
    tax returns. United States v. Queen, 
    132 F.3d 991
    , 994 (4th Cir.
    1997).
    Counsel also summarized four additional issues that Young desired
    to be raised on appeal, but which counsel believed did not merit
    extended discussion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that
    these arguments are without merit.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
    this case. We have found no meritorious issues for appeal, and there-
    fore affirm Young’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that
    counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
    Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client
    requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a peti-
    tion would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave
    to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
    copy thereof was served on the client.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4626, 01-4627

Citation Numbers: 64 F. App'x 899

Judges: King, Per Curiam, Traxler, Williams

Filed Date: 6/11/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023