US v. Yannick Pierre, No. 11-5182 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-5182 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. YANNICK PIERRE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00297-LMB-1) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, and May 24, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John L. Machado, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MACHADO, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Timothy D. Belevetz, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yannick Pierre was found guilty, following a jury trial, on twelve counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1347 (2006). After Pierre s case had been docketed for appeal, the Government disclosed evidence that had not been presented limited to Pierre purpose of before trial, directing the Pierre s motion for a new trial. and we district remanded court to for the consider The district court denied the motion, and Pierre filed a new notice of appeal to encompass this decision. On appeal, Pierre argues that the district court erred when it denied her motions for acquittal and a new trial. We affirm. First, Pierre contends that the district court improperly used its power to take judicial notice of the fact that Woodbridge, Virginia, is within the Eastern District of Virginia. Pierre argues that the Government was required to prove venue during its case in chief, and that the district court erred by supplying an element of the Government s case sua sponte. For this reason, Pierre contends that the district court erred when it denied her motion for judgment of acquittal filed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. We review a district court s decision to deny a Rule 29 motion de novo. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir. 2008). We note that [a]s a general proposition, 2 venue is proper in any district where the subject crime was committed. United States v. Ebersole, 411 F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir. 2005); see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3 (guaranteeing right of an accused person to be tried where crime was committed); U.S. Const. amend. VI (guaranteeing speedy trial in the district where the crime was committed); Fed. R. Crim. P. 18 (requiring prosecution to take place in the district where the crime was committed). offense, the preponderance Because venue is not an element of the government of the must it Ebersole, evidence. establish 411 only F.3d by at a 542; United States v. Smith, 198 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 1999). A district court may take judicial notice that venue is proper in a particular district. United States v. Kelly, 535 F.3d 1229, 1235-36 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1272 (11th Cir. 2006); cf. United States v. Lavender, 602 F.2d 639, 641 (4th Cir. 1979) (finding that court may take judicial notice that crime occurred within federal jurisdiction). Because venue is not an element of the Government s case, we conclude that the district court did not err when it denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. See United States v. Troupe, 307 F. App x 715, 717 (4th Cir. 2008) (noting that a district court may take judicial notice of venue even after the close of the government s evidence). 3 Pierre when it also denied her contends motion that for a the new district trial court based erred on discovered evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. newly We review a district court s denial of a Rule 33 motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Fulcher, 250 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2001). To receive a new trial based on newly discovered evidence evidence, is uncovering newly it; a defendant discovered; (3) the must (2) evidence show she is has not that: been (1) the in cumulative merely diligent or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material to the issues involved; and (5) the evidence would probably produce an acquittal. id. Unless the defendant demonstrates factors, the motion should be denied. 880 F.2d 788, 793 (4th Cir. all five of See these United States v. Chavis, 1989). Alternatively, Pierre alleges that she is entitled to a new trial under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Under either ground for relief, the issue in this case is whether the new evidence, which tends to impeach a Government witness, is material. Undisclosed evidence is material when its cumulative effect is probability that, had defense, the different. result Kyles such the of v. that there evidence the been proceeding Whitley, 514 U.S. is reasonable disclosed would 419, (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 4 a to have 433 the been (1995) A reasonable probability is one sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. at 434 ( The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. ). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district did court not abuse its discretion when it denied Pierre s motion for a new trial because, considering the wealth of evidence pointing to Pierre s guilt, the newly discovered evidence does not undermine confidence in the verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment and order. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented will not in aid the the material 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.
