United States v. Scranage , 254 F. App'x 248 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CLARENCE SCRANAGE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00391-HEH)
Submitted: September 28, 2007 Decided: November 20, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald M. Barley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck
Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Brian L. Whisler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Clarence Scranage, Jr., appeals his conviction and
sentence for making a false statement to a Federal Bureau of
Investigation agent and obstruction of justice in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. §§ 1001, 1512 (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Dr. Scranage
claims the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss
the indictment based on an alleged oral conferral of immunity. We
affirm.
Courts may enforce informal grants of transactional
immunity under the concept of equitable immunity where:
(1) an agreement was made; (2) the defendant has
performed on his side; and (3) the subsequent prosecution
is directly related to offenses in which the defendant,
pursuant to the agreement, either assisted with the
investigation or testified for the government.
United States v. McHan, 101 F.3d 1027, 1034 (4th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Rowe v. Griffin, 676 F.2d 524, 527-28 (11th Cir. 1982)).
We have reviewed the entire record and find no basis for reversing
the district court’s conclusion that there was no agreement between
the parties to confer immunity on Dr. Scranage.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -