US v. Regan Reedy, No. 18-4108 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-4108 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGAN DWAYNE REEDY, a/k/a Wegani Diweini Klandag Anisahoni, Defendant - Appellant. No. 18-4109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SUSAN ANNETTE REEDY, a/k/a Susani Aneti Anisahoni, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:17-cr-00025-JPJ-1; 7:17-cr-00025-JPJ-2) Submitted: November 29, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Regan Dwayne Reedy, Susan Annette Reedy, Appellants Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Regan Dwayne Reedy and Susan Annette Reedy were convicted by a jury of concealment in bankruptcy, 18 U.S.C. § 152(1) (2012) (two counts); false declaration in bankruptcy, 18 U.S.C. § 153(3) (2012) (two counts); and, false oath in bankruptcy, 18 U.S.C. § 152(2) (2012) (total of six counts). In addition, Regan Reedy was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012). Regan was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment; Susan was sentenced to 78 months. In their consolidated appeals, the Reedys appear to generally challenge the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction as well as venue. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and have found no reversible error. The district court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction over federal criminal cases, 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2012), and venue in the Western District of Virginia was proper, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 18. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments below. We deny Susan Reedy’s motions for an audio recording of the trial and for immediate release, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
