United States v. Furman Ford ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4210 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4070
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FURMAN ALEXANDER FORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-4210
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FURMAN ALEXANDER FORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00351-FL-1)
Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4210 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Furman Alexander Ford, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4210 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Furman Alexander Ford appeals the amended criminal
judgment entered after a jury convicted him of several mail fraud offenses, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1341; wire fraud offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and aggravated
identity theft offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), and the district court
sentenced Ford to 132 months in prison. Ford raises multiple arguments in these pro se
appeals, 1 including alleging that (1) an error under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269
(1959), occurred during trial, thereby causing structural error; (2) the district court
erroneously allowed into evidence testimony regarding the facts underlying Ford allegedly
issuing a false life insurance policy; and (3) the district court erroneously denied Ford’s
requests that certain witnesses be subpoenaed to testify at sentencing. Finding no error, we
affirm.
As to Ford’s Napue claim, the record establishes that Ford’s attorney opined that
such a claim would be frivolous and refused to raise the issue during the district court
proceedings. To the extent that Ford’s argument could be construed as an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, we find that ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear
on the record. See United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020).
1
Ford waived his right to counsel before this court.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4210 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
Accordingly, Ford’s Napue claim should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 2
See United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016).
As to Ford’s contention that the district court erroneously allowed into evidence
testimony regarding facts underlying Ford allegedly falsifying the issuance of a particular
life insurance policy, Ford presents no argument as to why the testimony was inadmissible.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We nonetheless find no reversible error on this record. See Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b)(2).
Finally, there is Ford’s assertion of error in terms of witness testimony at sentencing.
Specifically, Ford sought to present witness testimony to establish that a particular financial
transaction was not part of his scheme to defraud, which Ford contends would have resulted
in a lower loss amount for purposes of calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range.
Contrary to Ford’s argument, however, the transaction did not have to be charged in the
indictment or decided by the jury to be considered by the district court at sentencing. See
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 116 (2013) (“We have long recognized that broad
sentencing discretion, informed by judicial factfinding, does not violate the Sixth
Amendment.”).
Having considered Ford’s arguments and finding no error, we affirm the amended
criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
We express no opinion as to the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim.
4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4210 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 5 of 5
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5