US v. Henry Obilo, No. 09-4877 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4877 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY OBILO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00047-TSE-1) Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2011 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Iweanoge, II, IWEANOGE LAW CENTER, Washington, DC, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, John Eisinger, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Appellant Henry Obilo of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2006). Obilo appeals his conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the propriety of the jury instructions. He also argues his eighty-eight month sentence was unreasonable. For the reasons explained below, we affirm. First, Obilo maintains the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this court considers whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential reasonable doubt. elements of the crime beyond a Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Cameron, 573 F.3d 179, 183 (4th Cir. 2009). This court substantial evidence. must sustain a verdict Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80. supported by This court does not review the credibility of witnesses and assumes the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. 2002). United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 312 (4th Cir. Thus, [a] defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007). 2 United States v. Foster, 507 To establish that an accused has committed conspiracy, the government agreement must among prove the the following defendants to elements: commit an (1) illegal an act; (2) knowing and willing participation by the defendants in the agreement; and (3) an overt act by the defendants in furtherance United States v. Hedgepeth, of the purpose of the agreement. 418 F.3d 411, 420 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, [k]nowledge and participation in the conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Meredith, 824 F.2d 1418, 1428 (4th Cir. 1987). At trial, three of Obilo s coconspirators testified as to the existence of the conspiracy and described the complex methods it used to achieve its goal of stealing funds from high balance home identified conspiracy. enforcement equity Obilo lines and Further, officer of credit. described two of his the identified The witnesses involvement coconspirators Obilo s voice also with and on a the law recorded telephone calls, during which Obilo was attempting to access bank accounts belonging to other people. Finally, one of the coconspirators testified that he delivered cash proceeds from the scheme to Obilo. Government, this Viewed in the light most favorable to the evidence establishes reasonable doubt. 3 Obilo s guilt beyond a Next, Obilo contends his conviction should be reversed because the district court refused to give the jury his proposed multiple conspiracy district court s instruction. decision to This give or instruction for abuse of discretion. court refuse to reviews give the a jury United States v. Passaro, 577 F.3d 207, 221 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1551 (2010). A multiple conspiracy instruction is not required unless the proof at trial demonstrates that [the appellant was] involved only in separate conspiracies unrelated to the overall conspiracy charged Squillacote, quotation 221 marks in F.3d and the indictment. 542, 574 citation (4th United Cir. omitted). We States v. 2000) (internal have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, and conclude that it is devoid of evidence indicating Obilo was involved in only an unrelated conspiracy. Thus, we conclude the district court correctly refused his proposed jury instruction. Last, Obilo argues the district court s imposition of an eighty-eight month sentence was unreasonable. This court reviews a district court s sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473-74 (4th Cir. 2007). court must: (1) When sentencing a defendant, a district properly calculate the Guidelines range; (2) determine whether a sentence within that range serves the 4 factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006); (3) implement mandatory statutory limitations; and (4) explain its reasons for selecting a sentence. Here, Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. the district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Obilo and properly calculated the Guidelines sentence. relevant imposed § 3553(a) a After the district court considered the and the sentence variant factors that was advisory Guidelines sentencing range. parties twenty arguments, months below it the The district court varied downward in order to avoid imposing a sentence unnecessarily disparate from that of Obilo s coconspirators, but selected a sentence that still recognized Obilo s more culpable conduct. We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning Obilo s sentence. For the foregoing court s judgment. facts and materials legal before reasons, we affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
