UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4413
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NANCY JEAN SIEGEL, a/k/a Nancy Jean Sweitzer, a/k/a Nancy
Jean Geisendaffer, a/k/a Nancy Jean Kucharski,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:03-
cr-00393-AMD-1)
Submitted: April 19, 2010 Decided: May 21, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas J. Saunders, LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS SAUNDERS, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Tamera Fine, Richard Kay, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nancy Siegel appeals her convictions of theft of
government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2006)
(Counts 1-7); bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2)
(2006) (Counts 8-11, 13, 15); fraudulent use of means of
identification, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) (2006)
(Counts 14, 16); mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341
(2006) (Counts 17 and 18); wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1343 (2006) (Counts 19 and 20); and witness tampering —
murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C) (2006) (Count
22). On appeal, Siegel contends that the evidence was
insufficient to convict her of four of the bank fraud charges
(Counts 8-11) and the witness tampering — murder charge (Count
22). Additionally, Siegel argues that the Government’s evidence
of past fraudulent acts perpetrated by Siegel was inadmissible
propensity evidence, barred by Fed. R. Crim. P. 404(b). We
affirm.
“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence faces a heavy burden.” United States v. Foster, 507
F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007). We review a sufficiency of the
evidence challenge by determining whether, viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the Government, any rational
trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d
2
515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005); see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942). We review both direct and circumstantial
evidence, and accord the Government all reasonable inferences
from the facts shown to those sought to be established. United
States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). We will
uphold the jury’s verdict if substantial evidence supports it,
and will reverse only in those rare cases of clear failure by
the prosecution. Foster, 507 F.3d at 244-45.
Siegel first contends that the evidence was
insufficient to find her guilty of Counts 8-11, which allege the
fraud of four financial institutions. Specifically, Count 8
alleges that she defrauded Fleet Finance by causing a credit
card account to be opened in Jack Watkins’s name that was to be
used for her own purposes; Counts 9, 10, and 11 allege that she
defrauded Signet Bank, Nations Bank, and First USA Bank,
respectively, in the same manner.
To prove bank fraud, the Government had to establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that Siegel:
knowingly execute[d], or attempt[ed] to execute, a
scheme or artifice (1) to defraud a financial
institution; or (2) to obtain any of the moneys,
funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property
owned by, or under the custody or control of, a
financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises.
18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2006). Therefore, to be found guilty, the
jury had to find that Siegel (1) executed a scheme to defraud or
3
to obtain money, credit, or other property under control of an
institution through fraudulent pretenses; (2) did so knowingly;
and (3) the institution in question qualified as a “financial
institution” under 18 U.S.C. § 20 (2006). See United States v.
Brandon, 298 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir. 2002). After reviewing the
record in the light most favorable to the Government, we find
that the evidence was sufficient to convict Siegel of Counts 8-
11.
Siegel next contends that the evidence was
insufficient to convict her of witness tampering - murder under
18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C) (Count 22). In order to convict
Siegel of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C), the Government had to prove
that Siegel killed Watkins “with intent to . . . prevent the
communication by any person to a law enforcement officer . . .
of information relating to the commission or possible commission
of a Federal offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C). After
reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the
Government, we find that the evidence was sufficient to convict
Siegel of Count 22.
Finally, Siegel argues that the evidence of Siegel’s
past frauds against her ex-husbands, friends, and children was
inadmissible propensity evidence and was prohibited by Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b). However, this issue was the subject of an
interlocutory appeal filed by the Government, wherein we found
4
that the evidence challenged by Siegel in this appeal was
relevant to issues other than Siegel’s bad character, and was
therefore not barred by Rule 404(b). See United States v.
Siegel, 536 F.3d 306, 317-21 (4th Cir. 2008). Under the law of
the case doctrine, “when a court decides upon a rule of law,
that decision should continue to govern the same issues in
subsequent proceedings in the same case.” Walker v. Kelly, 589
F.3d 127, 137 (4th Cir. 2009). There are three exceptions to
this doctrine, allowing for further review of a previously
decided issue where: “(1) a subsequent trial produces
substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has
since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue,
or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work
manifest injustice.” Id. As no exception is applicable here,
and Siegel concedes the applicability of the doctrine, this
issue is without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately expressed in the materials
before the court and argument will not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5