United States v. King Solomon, II , 586 F. App'x 124 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4358
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KING SOLOMON, II, a/k/a Terry Lee Herron,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00486-JAB-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: December 2, 2014
Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Graham T.
Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
King Solomon, II, was sentenced to six months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release for falsely
impersonating a United States government official, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 912 (2012); falsely impersonating a foreign
diplomat to avoid criminal prosecution, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 915 (2012); and falsely impersonating a foreign
diplomat and acting as such, also in violation of § 915. On
appeal, Solomon only contends that the district court erred in
denying his motion for acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on the § 915 charges. We
affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 29
motion de novo. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th
Cir. 2005). We will affirm if, when the evidence is viewed in
the light most favorable to the Government, the conviction is
supported by substantial evidence. United States v. Hickman,
626 F.3d 756, 762-63 (4th Cir. 2010). “‘Substantial evidence’
is ‘evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Green, 599
F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Burgos,
94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). A defendant
challenging evidentiary sufficiency “faces a heavy burden,” as
2
reversal of a conviction is limited to those circumstances in
which “the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United States v.
Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government,
there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Solomon
falsely represented himself as a foreign diplomat. Further, we
reject Solomon’s contention that the Government was required to
prove that he claimed to represent a specific foreign
government. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the
district court did not err in denying Solomon’s Rule 29 motion
for acquittal on the § 915 charges.
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