US v. Tony Tran, No. 11-4377 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4377 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TONY TUNG TRAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00209-LO-1) Submitted: December 6, 2011 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 15, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles J. Soschin, LAW OFFICE OF C.J. SOSCHIN, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Inayat Delawala, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tony Tung Tran appeals his conviction and resulting eighteen month custodial sentence. six counts (2006). of bank fraud in A jury found Tran guilty of violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 1344 The charges arose from a scheme in which Tran used underfunded or nonexistent checking accounts to pay down his credit card balances. He then made large purchases and obtained cash advances during the float period. Tran asserts that the district court erred in admitting a chart that included a summary of unfunded transfers initiated by Tran that were not charged in the indictment. We review a trial court s ruling on admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. 153 (4th Cir. 2011). United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, Relevant evidence is generally admissible, but may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403. However, Rule 403 is a rule of inclusion, generally favoring admissibility. States v. Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260, 264-65 (4th (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Cir. United 2008) When assessing a Rule 403 challenge on appeal, we look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative 2 value and minimizing its prejudicial effect. United States v. Simpson, 910 F.2d 154, 157 (4th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Voluminous material may be admitted in summary form if it cannot otherwise be conveniently examined in court. Fed. R. Evid. 1006. We find the challenged exhibit to be relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The exhibit rebutted Tran s claim that the unfunded transfers were the product of a series of honest mistakes. to The summary presentation was necessary for the jury conveniently conceptualize unfunded transfers. and examine Tran s pattern of Tran fails to convince us that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the challenged exhibit. Tran denying his also motions claims that for judgment a the district of court acquittal erred because by the evidence was insufficient to prove his intent to defraud the banks. We review the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo. (4th Cir. 2006). United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence 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, the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. evidence Smith, 451 F.3d at 216. that a reasonable finder 3 Substantial evidence is of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for the case rare where the prosecution s failure is clear. Beidler, 110 F.3d at 1067 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, convictions. we The find it sufficient repetitive unfunded to support transfers Tran s immediately followed by large purchases and cash advances demonstrate that Tran acted with knowledge of the fraud. His excuse that he was relying on loans from relatives abroad is incredible in light of the size of the total transfers relative to the amount of the purported receipt loans of his and the fact relatives massive transfers of funds. that money Tran before did not forging verify ahead the with In short, Tran has failed to carry his heavy burden on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. 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 4
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.
