US v. Raymond Deskins, III, No. 12-4354 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND ELMO DESKINS, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00418-LO-1) Submitted: November 27, 2012 Decided: January 3, 2013 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan H. Yamamoto, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Paul J. Nathanson, Kosta S. Stojilkovic, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Elmo Deskins, III, was convicted of nine counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2012), and three counts of making false statements in order to receive government benefits, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1920 (2006). Deskins was sentenced to twenty-four months imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $623,438.08. On appeal, Deskins argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the district court erred in attributable to his fraud. determining the amount of loss We affirm. This court reviews the denial of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion de novo. Cir. 2005). challenge We to substantial United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th will the uphold sufficiency evidence, taking Government, to support it. a conviction in of the evidence the view most the if face of there favorable to a is the United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 244 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). We credibility. will not weigh evidence or review witness United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). The Government presented ample evidence that Deskins made materially false statements in connection with a scheme to defraud the government of benefits to which he was not entitled, 2 benefits for which Deskins re-applied and received through the mail. After a complete review of the testimony, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a factfinder could find Deskins guilty of all counts. See United States v. Wynn, 684 F.3d 473, 477-78 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussing elements of mail fraud); United States v. Harms, 442 F.3d 367, 372-73 (5th Cir. 2006) (setting forth elements of § 1920 offense). We court s loss therefore affirm his convictions. Deskins determination. factual next challenges the district We review for clear error the district court s determination of the amount of loss attributable to [Deskins], mindful that the [district] court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss[.] F.3d 396, 409 (4th Cir. 2012) United States v. Cloud, 680 (citation and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 81 U.S.L.W. 3164 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2012). This court reviews orders of restitution for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 391 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court calculated the amount of loss at $623,438.08 and ordered restitution in the same amount. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its factual finding that Deskins was not entitled to any benefits after the fraudulent scheme began in 2005. Because Deskins was not entitled to any benefits after 2005, the 3 district court did not err in determining the amount of loss to be the full amount of benefits paid after that time. We thus affirm Deskins s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
