US v. John Rachel, No. 09-1748 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOHN J. RACHEL; RGI, INCORPORATED, a Virginia Corporation; CSM, INCORPORATED, a Maryland Corporation, Defendants Appellants. No. 09-2183 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. PRISCILLA RACHEL, Defendant Appellant, and JOHN J. RACHEL; RGI, INCORPORATED, a Virginia Corporation; CSM, INCORPORATED, a Maryland Corporation, Defendants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cv-00754-WMN) Argued: May 10, 2011 Decided: June 7, 2011 Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and David C. NORTON, Chief United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Edward Jay Tolchin, FETTMANN, TOLCHIN & MAJORS, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Michael Anthony DiPietro, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: The United States filed this civil action against John Rachel, Priscilla Rachel, RGI, Inc., and CSM, Inc. this appeal, the government asserted five Pertinent to causes of action: Counts 1-3 (False Claims Act violations); Count 7 (Payment Under Mistake of Fact); and Count 8 (Unjust Enrichment). Following trial, the jury returned a verdict on all counts in favor of Priscilla Rachel, and against John Rachel, RGI, Inc., and CSM, Inc. Thereafter, the district court denied various post-trial motions and entered final judgment in accord with the verdict. On appeal, Priscilla Rachel contends that the district court erred in denying her post-trial motion for attorneys fees and costs. John Rachel, RGI, Inc., and CSM, Inc. contend that the court erred in denying their post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, asserting various grounds. After having the benefit of oral argument and carefully reviewing the briefs, record, and controlling legal authorities, we find no reversible error in the district court s disposition of these issues. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See J.A. 39-53 (memorandum and order denying post-trial motion of John Rachel, RGI, Inc., and CSM, Inc.); J.A. 56-60 (memorandum and order denying post-trial motion of Priscilla Rachel). 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.
