Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Kenneth Ravenell
Citation: Not availableDocket: 22-4369
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; April 25, 2023; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an order denying Kenneth Wendell Ravenell's petition for en banc reconsideration regarding his motion for bail and stay of sentence pending appeal. A poll among the judges revealed a split decision, with Chief Judge Gregory, Judges Motz, King, Wynn, and Thacker voting in favor of reconsideration, while Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Agee, Diaz, Harris, Richardson, Quattlebaum, Rushing, and Heytens voted against it. Circuit Judge Wynn, joined by Judges Motz, King, and Thacker in dissent, criticized the court's refusal to review the trial judge's denial of Ravenell's bail request, comparing it to a previous case involving former Governor Robert McDonnell, who received similar relief under analogous circumstances. Wynn emphasized that both defendants faced similar factual scenarios and that Ravenell poses no flight risk or danger to the community. Wynn highlighted that the central issue is whether Ravenell’s appeal raises a "substantial question of law or fact" that could lead to a new trial, arguing that Ravenell's case presents a closer question regarding the jury instruction on the statute of limitations. He asserted that this issue is significant enough to warrant reconsideration and expressed concern over the inconsistency in the court's treatment of Ravenell's and McDonnell's cases, concluding that denying Ravenell's request is unfair.