UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4252
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER LLOYD BLAIR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:08-cr-00505-PJM-1)
Submitted: January 15, 2013 Decided: January 30, 2013
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Lloyd Blair, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, James A. Crowell IV, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Walter Lloyd Blair on eight counts of
concealment money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (West 2000 & Supp. 2012) (Counts 1 through
8); one count of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 1957(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2012) (Count 9); one count of
witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (2006)
(Count 10); one count of obstructing justice, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1503(a) (2006) (Count 11); one count of making a false
statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2006) (Count
12); and two counts of failing to file an income tax return, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (2006) (Counts 13 and 14). The
district court sentenced Blair to ninety-seven months’
imprisonment each on Counts 1 through 11; sixty months’
imprisonment on Count 12; and twelve months’ imprisonment each
on Counts 13 and 14, all to be served concurrently. Blair
appealed his convictions on several counts. By published
decision, this court reversed Count 11, the obstruction of
justice conviction, affirmed the other challenged convictions,
and remanded “for resentencing in light of this decision.”
United States v. Blair, 661 F.3d 755, 775 (4th Cir. 2011), cert.
denied, 132 S. Ct. 2740 (2012).
On remand, the district court reimposed the same
sentence on the surviving counts. Blair appeals, challenging
2
his convictions and sentence. However, absent circumstances not
present here, the mandate rule precludes “relitigation of issues
expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court,” and
“litigation of issues decided by the district court but foregone
on appeal.” United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir.
1993); see United States v. Pileggi, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2013 WL
14305, at *4 (4th Cir. Jan. 2, 2013) (providing exceptions to
mandate rule). We have reviewed Blair’s arguments on appeal and
conclude that all of his challenges to his convictions and the
majority of his sentencing issues are foreclosed by the mandate
rule.
To the extent that Blair’s challenges to the
adjustments under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §§ 3B1.3 & 3C1.1
(2009) are not foreclosed by the mandate rule and are otherwise
properly before this court, we find no clear error in the
application of those adjustments. United States v. Alvarado
Perez, 609 F.3d 609, 612 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3