US v. Karl Johnson, No. 07-5056 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-5056 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KARL KJ JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cr-00098-GRA-1) Submitted: August 29, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian W. Shaughnessy, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, David C. Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Karl KJ Johnson was found guilty by a jury of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp. 2008), and was sentenced to eighty-seven months of imprisonment. On appeal he raises three issues, whether: (1) irrelevant and prejudicial evidence improperly associated him with criminal conduct; (2) his conviction was supported by substantial evidence, and (3) his sentence was imposed in conformance with the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and was disparate from other defendants. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. First, we find no clear abuse of discretion by the district court by allowing background testimony related to the Government s investigation of complicated financial fraud. States v. Russell, 971 F.2d 1098, 1104 (4th Cir. 1992). United Nor do we find reversible error by the district court under either the hearsay rule, United States v. Love, 767 F.2d 1052, 1063 (4th Cir. 1985), or Fed. R. Evid. 403 and related rules. United States v. Heyward, 729 F.2d 297, 301 n.2 (4th Cir. 1984). Second, viewing the evidence as required, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), we find there was sufficient evidence to support Johnson s conviction for wire fraud. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996). The Government proved both elements required to sustain the conviction. See United States v. Curry, 461 F.3d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) 2 (noting that wire fraud has two essential elements: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud and (2) use of wire communication in furtherance of that scheme). Finally, the district court s eighty-seven month sentence was not an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (stating review standard). sentence within Guidelines his range, reasonableness. properly-calculated which is entitled to Johnson received a advisory a Sentencing presumption of United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence). Johnson has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness by showing that the sentence was unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) factors. Accordingly, we grant the Government s motion to submit the case on briefs and affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
