US v. Joy First, No. 14-4149 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOY FIRST, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-4150 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PHILLIP RUNKEL, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-4161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MALACHY KILBRIDE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-4165 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JANICE SEVRE -DUSZYNSKA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-4168 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MAX OBUSZEWSKI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00444-TSE-1; 1:13-cr-00446-TSE-IDD-1; 1:13-cr-00425-TSE-IDD-1; 1:13-cr-00447-TSE-IDD-1; 1:13-cr-00445TSE-1) Submitted: July 15, 2014 Decided: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 2 July 30, 2014 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joy First; Phillip Runkel; Malachy Kilbride; Janice Sevre Duszynska; Max Obuszewski, Appellants Pro Se. Stacy M. Chaffin, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Rosanne Cannon Haney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: After a bench trial before a magistrate judge, Joy First, Phillip Runkel, Malachy Kilbride, Janice Sevre -Duszynska and Max Obuszewski were convicted of trespassing in violation of 32 C.F.R. § 1903.7(a) (2014). The district court affirmed their convictions. the sufficiency On of appeal, the evidence Appellants as well challenge certain the evidentiary decisions made by the magistrate judge. On appeal from a district court order affirming a magistrate judge s decision, we use the same standard used by the district court: whether the magistrate judge s findings when viewed in a light most favorable to the Government were clearly erroneous. (5th Cir. 1976). United States v. Hughes, 542 F.2d 246, 248 We have reviewed the evidence, including the various arguments put forth by the Appellants that their conduct was not illegal, and conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions. We have also reviewed the evidentiary decisions made by the magistrate judge and conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, We dispense with oral we affirm argument 4 the district because the court s facts orders. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.