United States v. Furman Ford

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-4210
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4210 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4070

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FURMAN ALEXANDER FORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 22-4210

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00351-FL-1)

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2023 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4210 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 5

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Furman Alexander Ford, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4210 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Furman Alexander Ford appeals the amended criminal

judgment entered after a jury convicted him of several mail fraud offenses, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1341; wire fraud offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and aggravated

identity theft offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), and the district court

sentenced Ford to 132 months in prison. Ford raises multiple arguments in these pro se

appeals, 1 including alleging that (1) an error under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269

(1959), occurred during trial, thereby causing structural error; (2) the district court

erroneously allowed into evidence testimony regarding the facts underlying Ford allegedly

issuing a false life insurance policy; and (3) the district court erroneously denied Ford’s

requests that certain witnesses be subpoenaed to testify at sentencing. Finding no error, we

affirm.

As to Ford’s Napue claim, the record establishes that Ford’s attorney opined that

such a claim would be frivolous and refused to raise the issue during the district court

proceedings. To the extent that Ford’s argument could be construed as an ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, we find that ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear

on the record. See United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020).

1 Ford waived his right to counsel before this court.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4210 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 4 of 5

Accordingly, Ford’s Napue claim should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 2

See United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016).

As to Ford’s contention that the district court erroneously allowed into evidence

testimony regarding facts underlying Ford allegedly falsifying the issuance of a particular

life insurance policy, Ford presents no argument as to why the testimony was inadmissible.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We nonetheless find no reversible error on this record. See Fed. R.

Evid. 404(b)(2).

Finally, there is Ford’s assertion of error in terms of witness testimony at sentencing.

Specifically, Ford sought to present witness testimony to establish that a particular financial

transaction was not part of his scheme to defraud, which Ford contends would have resulted

in a lower loss amount for purposes of calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range.

Contrary to Ford’s argument, however, the transaction did not have to be charged in the

indictment or decided by the jury to be considered by the district court at sentencing. See

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 116 (2013) (“We have long recognized that broad

sentencing discretion, informed by judicial factfinding, does not violate the Sixth

Amendment.”).

Having considered Ford’s arguments and finding no error, we affirm the amended

criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 We express no opinion as to the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4210 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 5 of 5

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED