US v. Irvin Catlett, Jr., No. 11-4331 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4331 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. IRVIN HANNIS CATLETT, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:10-cr-00101-RWT-1) Submitted: November 30, 2012 Decided: December 11, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Irvin Hannis Catlett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Robert Bockin, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Frank Phillip Cihlar, Gregory Victor Davis, Mark Sterling Determan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A federal jury convicted Irvin Hannis Catlett, Jr., of conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. preparation § 7206(2) § of abetting, in (2006); false (2006); administration 371 of tax counts returns, and corruptly the internal violation § 7212(a) (2006). ten of 18 in of aiding violation endeavoring revenue U.S.C. § to laws 2 of 26 in U.S.C. obstruct and aiding (2006), 26 the the and U.S.C. The district court sentenced Catlett to a total of 210 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Catlett argues that the district court erred in denying his requests for continuances at various stages of the trial. We review a district court s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 738-39 (4th Cir. 2006). found, the prejudiced defendant [his] case However, even if such an abuse is must show that in order to the error prevail. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). specifically Id. at 739 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Catlett s requests. Catlett also argues that the Government committed prosecutorial misconduct by unfairly intimidating witnesses and committing various other improper acts. 2 To succeed on a claim of prosecutorial government s misconduct, conduct a defendant prejudicially must show affected his that the substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial. United States v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2002). In reviewing a claim of determine prosecutorial whether misconduct, the conduct so we review infected the the claim trial to with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Government did not commit misconduct. Catlett next argues that the district court prejudiced him by asking the potential jurors whether they had any strong views of the tax laws during voir dire, and that the district court was biased against him. As Catlett did not raise the voir dire issue below, we review this argument for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). To meet this standard, Catlett must demonstrate that there was error, that was plain, and that affected his substantial rights. Id. Moreover, even if Catlett demonstrates plain error occurred, this court will not exercise discretion to correct the fairness, error integrity proceedings. omitted). unless Id. or the error public (internal seriously reputation quotation marks affect[s] the of judicial and citation We have reviewed the record and the relevant legal 3 authorities and conclude that the district court did not commit plain error in conducting voir dire. In addition, we conclude that Catlett has failed to demonstrate that the district court was biased against him. See United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003). Catlett also argues that the district court erred in refusing his proposed reasonable doubt. jury instruction on the definition of However, the district court did not err as [i]t is well settled in this circuit that a district court should not attempt to define the term reasonable doubt in a jury instruction absent a specific request for such a definition from the jury. United States v. Oriakhi, 57 F.3d 1290, 1300 (4th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Next, evidence to Catlett support the argues that conspiracy there was conviction. insufficient We review a district court s decision to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo. 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006). sufficiency of the evidence United States v. Smith, A defendant challenging the faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). The verdict of a jury must be sustained if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supported by substantial evidence. (citations omitted). the verdict is Smith, 451 F.3d at 216 Substantial evidence is evidence that a 4 reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. omitted). weighs Id. (internal quotation marks and citation Furthermore, the [t]he credibility of jury, the not the evidence conflicts in the evidence presented. reviewing and court, resolves any Beidler, 110 F.3d at 1067 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare case where the prosecution s failure is clear. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In United order States, existence of to the an demonstrate Government agreement, conspiracy had (2) an to to defraud demonstrate overt act by the (1) one the of the conspirators in furtherance of the objectives, and (3) an intent on the part of the conspirators to agree as well as to defraud the United States. United States v. Gosselin World Wide Moving, 411 F.3d 502, 516 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the Government is not required through to make this showing direct evidence as a conspiracy may be proved wholly by circumstantial evidence, and therefore may be inferred from the circumstances presented at trial. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Our review of the record leads us to conclude 5 that the Government presented overwhelming evidence of Catlett s guilt of the offenses of conviction. Catlett calculations also under the challenges Sentencing the district Guidelines. court s Specifically, Catlett contends that the district court erred in enhancing the base offense level for obstruction of justice and in calculating his criminal court s district history category. calculations court s under legal In the Guidelines, conclusions findings for clear error. reviewing de the district we and novo review its the factual United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). We will find clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. at 631 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 3C1.1 (2011), a district court applies a two-level enhancement in offense impede the level the defendant administration prosecution of related the to if the of offense conviction Guidelines specify conduct. See USSG that justice with of conviction or any committing § 3C1.1 attempted cmt. n.4(B). obstruct respect and relevant perjury to that to or the conduct conduct. The constitutes such In addition, in calculating a defendant s criminal history under the Guidelines, 6 a district court shall add three points for each prior sentence of imprisonment § 4A1.1(a). exceeding one year and one month. USSG A sentence imposed more than fifteen years prior to the commencement of the instant offense is not counted unless the defendant s period. incarceration § 4A1.1 USSG extended n.1. cmt. into Here, this the fifteen-year district court correctly enhanced Catlett s offense level for obstruction of justice and correctly calculated Catlett s applicable criminal history category under the Guidelines. Catlett next argues that his conviction for corruptly endeavoring revenue to laws obstruct is barred the by administration the statute of of the internal limitations. As Catlett failed to raise this issue before the district court, we review this argument for plain error. 731-32. In § 7212(a), order the 1) corruptly; to prove government 2) must endeavored; 3) a See Olano, 507 U.S. at violation prove to of that obstruct administration of the Internal Revenue Code. 26 the or U.S.C.[] defendant: impede the United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The applicable statute of limitations is six years, and commences on the date of the last corrupt (2006)). act. See id. at 236 (citing 26 U.S.C. § 6531(6) We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the statute of limitations did not bar Catlett s conviction 7 on this count. In addition, we have reviewed Catlett s other arguments and conclude that they lack merit. We court. We therefore further affirm deny the judgment Catlett s motions of the to district vacate the convictions and to reconsider our prior order denying his motion to compel production of the record. 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 8

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.