US v. Walter Blair, No. 12-4252 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4252 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WALTER LLOYD BLAIR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cr-00505-PJM-1) Submitted: January 15, 2013 Decided: January 30, 2013 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Lloyd Blair, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James A. Crowell IV, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Walter Lloyd Blair on eight counts of concealment money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (West 2000 & Supp. 2012) (Counts 1 through 8); one count of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1957(a) witness (West 2000 tampering, in & Supp. 2012) violation (Count of 18 9); U.S.C. one count § 1512 of (2006) (Count 10); one count of obstructing justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a) (2006) (Count 11); one count of making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2006) (Count 12); and two counts of failing to file an income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (2006) (Counts 13 and 14). district court imprisonment sentenced each on Blair Counts 1 to ninety-seven through 11; The months sixty months imprisonment on Count 12; and twelve months imprisonment each on Counts 13 and 14, all to be served concurrently. appealed decision, his convictions this court on several reversed Count counts. 11, the By Blair published obstruction of justice conviction, affirmed the other challenged convictions, and remanded for resentencing in light of this decision. United States v. Blair, 661 F.3d 755, 775 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2740 (2012). On remand, the district sentence on the surviving counts. 2 court reimposed the same Blair appeals, challenging his convictions and sentence. However, absent circumstances not present here, the mandate rule precludes relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court, and litigation of issues decided by the district court but foregone on appeal. United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993); see United States v. Pileggi, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2013 WL 14305, at *4 (4th Cir. Jan. 2, 2013) (providing exceptions to mandate rule). We have reviewed Blair s arguments on appeal and conclude that all of his challenges to his convictions and the majority of his sentencing issues are foreclosed by the mandate rule. To the extent that Blair s challenges to the adjustments under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §§ 3B1.3 & 3C1.1 (2009) are not foreclosed by the mandate rule and are otherwise properly before this court, we application of those adjustments. find no clear error in the United States v. Alvarado Perez, 609 F.3d 609, 612 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 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 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.
