The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the wire fraud conviction of Daniel Frank Heggins in an unpublished per curiam opinion issued Feb. 4, 2026, rejecting his challenges to both his conviction and restitution order.
A jury found Heggins guilty of aiding and abetting wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia sentenced him to 24 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. The court also ordered Heggins to pay $6,029 in restitution to Homestead Settlement Services, holding him jointly and severally liable for the amount.
The case originated in the Western District of Virginia at Roanoke under Chief District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon. Court records identify Heggins as an agent of Tebnu El-Bey, indicating his role in the fraudulent scheme that led to his prosecution.
On appeal, Heggins raised two primary arguments challenging his conviction and sentence. First, he argued the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Heggins contended the court incorrectly determined that jurors could consider conduct beyond a singular false statement when evaluating the wire fraud charges against him.
Second, Heggins challenged the district court's restitution order requiring him to pay $6,029 to Homestead Settlement Services. The restitution represents financial harm suffered by the settlement services company as a result of the fraudulent scheme.
The Fourth Circuit panel consisting of Circuit Judges Paul Niemeyer, Andre Wynn, and Stephanie Thacker heard the appeal. The court moved quickly on the case, with oral arguments submitted Feb. 2, 2026, and the decision issued just two days later on Feb. 4, 2026.
In its brief per curiam opinion, the appeals court rejected both of Heggins' arguments and affirmed his conviction and sentence in full. The court found no error in the district court's handling of the motion for judgment of acquittal, effectively ruling that sufficient evidence supported the jury's guilty verdict on the wire fraud charge.
The appeals court also upheld the restitution order, finding the district court acted within its authority in requiring Heggins to compensate Homestead Settlement Services for losses stemming from the fraudulent scheme. Under federal law, courts routinely order restitution to victims of financial crimes to make them whole for their losses.
Wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 is a federal felony that criminalizes schemes to defraud using electronic communications. The statute requires prosecutors to prove defendants devised a scheme to defraud, used wire communications in furtherance of the scheme, and acted with intent to defraud. Aiding and abetting charges allow prosecution of individuals who assist in criminal schemes even if they don't personally execute every element of the crime.
Heggins was represented on appeal by Paul G. Beers of Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte in Roanoke, Virginia. The government was represented by Acting United States Attorney Robert N. Tracci and Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Jones from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Roanoke.
The case reflects ongoing federal enforcement efforts against wire fraud schemes, particularly those involving settlement services and real estate transactions. Settlement service companies like Homestead handle financial transactions in property sales and are frequent targets of fraudulent schemes due to the large sums of money involved.
As an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit's decision in *United States v. Heggins* does not establish binding precedent within the circuit. However, the ruling demonstrates the appeals court's willingness to uphold wire fraud convictions where sufficient evidence supports the charges.
The affirmance means Heggins must serve his 24-month prison sentence and complete three years of supervised release. He also remains obligated to pay the $6,029 restitution to Homestead Settlement Services. The joint and several liability designation means if co-defendants exist, any of them could be required to pay the full restitution amount if others fail to pay their shares.
Federal sentencing guidelines typically recommend imprisonment terms for wire fraud based on the amount of loss involved and the defendant's criminal history. The 24-month sentence suggests the fraudulent scheme involved a relatively modest financial loss compared to large-scale fraud cases that can result in decades-long prison terms.
The case underscores the serious consequences individuals face when participating in wire fraud schemes, even in supporting roles. Federal prosecutors increasingly pursue aiding and abetting charges against accomplices who facilitate fraudulent schemes without directly executing all elements of the underlying crimes.