U.S. v. LINGENFELTER No. 11-4582.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LARRY EUGENE LINGENFELTER, Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Decided: April 2, 2012.
Michael D. Kmetz, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth B. Fitzwater, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Eugene Lingenfelter appeals his convictions by jury and his 330-month aggregate sentence for his role in hiring a longtime friend to murder his ex-wife. After thoroughly examining the record and the contentions of the parties, we affirm.
Lingenfelter first contends that, during his trial, the district court improperly limited his ability to cross-examine two prosecution witnesses, thereby violating his rights under the Confrontation Clause. We disagree. "[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees an
In this case, the district court permitted Lingenfelter an opportunity for a "substantial and thorough examination" of both of the witnesses at issue, which is all the Confrontation Clause requires.
Lingenfelter next claims that the district court erred in denying his motion alleging that his convictions of both conspiracy and for substantive offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) (2006) violated his double jeopardy rights. This court reviews questions of double jeopardy de novo.
By its own terms, § 1958(a) criminalizes anyone (a) who uses interstate commerce facilities or causes another to do so with intent that a murder be committed, or (b) "who conspires to do so."
Here, Count One of the indictment charged Lingenfelter with conspiracy under § 1958(a). Counts Two and Three charged him with substantive violations of § 1958(a) for two separate courses of conduct: on or about April 19, 2010, and on or about June 27, 2010, respectively. Because § 1958(a) does not preclude conviction of both offenses that it describes on the basis of a single course of conduct, and because each offense with which Lingenfelter was charged required proof of an element that the others did not, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not insulate Lingenfelter from conviction on all counts of the indictment.
Finally, Lingenfelter claims that he was erroneously accorded a 2-point leadership enhancement under
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
- No Cases Found