US v. Bobbie Brown, No. 13-4753 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4753 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BOBBIE JO BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-4754 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MITCHELL EDWARD GARVIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00010-JPJ-PMS-13; 1:13-cr-00010-JPJ-PMS-26) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 7, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Casey Allen Sears, II, Johnson City, Tennessee; Douglas L. Payne, LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS L. PAYNE, Greeneville, Tennessee, for Appellants. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Bobbie Jo Brown and Mitchell Edward Garvin of multiple counts of passing false and fictitious checks with the intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514(a)(2) (2012), and conspiracy to pass false and fictitious checks with the intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012). On appeal, Brown and Garvin challenge their convictions, arguing that the Government did not meet its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had the intent to defraud. We affirm. We review de novo the district court s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917, 921 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2689 (2014). In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the conviction when Government. reasonable viewed Id. finder in the Substantial of fact light most evidence could is accept favorable evidence as to the that adequate a and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). whether any rational trier of fact could essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. 3 have The test is found the United States v. Madrigal-Valadez, 561 F.3d 370, 374 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We consider the complete picture created by the evidence, United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc), including both circumstantial and direct evidence, and draw all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the Government s favor. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). If the evidence supports different interpretations, the jury believe, may not and we decides overturn which a interpretation substantially to supported verdict merely because [we] find[] the verdict unpalatable or determine[] that preferable. another, reasonable Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862. verdict would be Rather, [a] defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge must overcome a heavy burden, and reversal for insufficiency must be confined to cases where the prosecution s failure is clear. 676 F.3d 405, 419 (4th Cir.) United States v. Engle, (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 179 (2012). To sustain convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and § 514(a)(2), the government must prove, among other elements, that the defendant had the intent to defraud when cashing the false or fictitious instrument. See 18 U.S.C. § 514(a) ( Whoever, with the intent to defraud . . . . ); Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672, 678 (1959) ( Conspiracy to commit a 4 particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense itself. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Like other facts, [f]raudulent intent may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and United v. States need Ham, not 998 be proven by direct F.2d 1247, 1254 (4th evidence. Cir. 1993). Moreover, under the doctrine of willful blindness, knowledge may be inferred where a defendant deliberately avoids enlightenment. United States v. Campbell, 977 F.2d 854, 857 (4th Cir. 1992). Here, Appellants had circumstances suspicious although the there intent to surrounding enough to was alert no defraud, the direct we conclude check-cashing even the evidence most that scheme that the were unsophisticated individual to the fraudulent nature of the scheme. Moreover, the evidence suggests that Appellants took very few actions to ascertain the validity of the checks even when the transpiring events gave them reasons to suspect that the checks were not legitimate. Finally, Brown testified that she was generally wary of requests to cash monetary instruments but cashed the checks nevertheless, having only the bald assertion from someone she barely knew that they were legitimate. have concluded that Appellants Thus, the jury could subjectively believe[d] that there [was] a high probability that the checks were not valid and that they took deliberate actions to avoid learning that 5 they were in fact invalid. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. V. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060, 2070 (2011). Accordingly, we conclude that the Government met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellants had the intent judgments. legal before to defraud, we affirm the district court s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this and court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 6
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.
