United States v. Jaamal Cotman , 458 F. App'x 319 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4100
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAAMAL ANTONIO COTMAN, a/k/a Jamaal A. Cotman,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00185-HEH-1)
Submitted: November 29, 2011 Decided: December 20, 2011
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew W. Greene, GREENE LAW GROUP, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia,
for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney,
Michael A. Jagels, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jaamal Antonio Cotman was convicted of interference
with commerce by threats and violence, and aiding and abetting
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006) (attempted robbery)
(Count 1); discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of
violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), (d) (2006) (Count
2); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006) (Count 3). Cotman was
sentenced to a total of 240 months of imprisonment. On appeal,
he raises one issue: whether the district court erred by denying
his motion for acquittal for his § 1951 Hobbs Act conviction.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Cotman’s issue turns on whether the Government proved
he attempted to rob a drug dealer — which was the conduct
underlying his § 1951 conviction. We review de novo a denial of
a motion for acquittal. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681,
693 (4th Cir. 2005). Where, as here, the motion was based on a
claim of insufficient evidence, the verdict of a jury must be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the Government, to support it. Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We have defined substantial
evidence as 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. Alerre, 430 F.3d
2
at 693; see United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.
1996).
Here, the jury heard evidence that Cotman and Carl
Phillips exchanged gun fire during what Phillips described as an
attempted robbery. Phillips was an illegal marijuana dealer.
Moreover, a fellow inmate testified that Cotman told him of the
attempted robbery of “Weed Man,” as Phillips was known. Based
on this testimony, and the supporting forensic evidence, we find
that the jury could have properly determined that Cotman
attempted to rob Phillips. Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693; United
States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting that
this court does not review credibility). We have previously
held that a robbery of a drug dealer is sufficient to establish
the interstate commerce element of a § 1951 conviction. See
United States v. Williams, 342 F.3d 350, 354 (4th Cir. 2003).
Thus, we find no error in the district court’s denial of
Cotman’s motion for acquittal.
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3