UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4116
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL R. TOTH, JR., a/k/a P. J. Toth, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00195-RJC-DCK-1)
Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric A. Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Leslie
R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, David M. Lieberman, Appellate
Section, Patrick M. Donley, William Henry Bowne, III, Anna
Kaminska, Fraud Section, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul R. Toth, Jr., was convicted after a jury trial of
conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956(h) (2012), and six counts of money laundering
concealment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)
(2012), and was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Toth challenges his convictions, arguing that the
district court erred in instructing the jury on willful
blindness. We affirm.
We reject Toth’s contention that the district court erred
in giving an instruction on willful blindness because Toth
invited the error of which he now complains by requesting a
willful blindness instruction in the proceedings below.
See United States v. Lespier, 725 F.3d 437, 445-46, 449-51
(4th Cir. 2013) (invited error doctrine applies where defendant
opposed provision of a lesser-included offense instruction and
then argued on appeal that it was error for instruction not to
have been given); United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 772
(4th Cir. 2010) (declining, under invited error doctrine, to
review defendant’s claim that the jury misused a book containing
transcripts of recorded telephone calls where defendant
confirmed to the district court that he did not object to the
jury having access to the book and further agreed to the method
by which the jury would gain access to the book). Further, Toth
2
does not establish the presence of extraordinary circumstances
that would warrant our review of an error invited by an
appellant. See Hickman, 626 F.3d at 772.
Accordingly, we affirm the criminal 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