United States v. Brown , 242 F. App'x 920 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-4384
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANDREW BROWN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III,
    District Judge. (2:05-cr-00017-D)
    Submitted:   May 30, 2007                     Decided:   July 2, 2007
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit
    Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert J. McAfee, McAFEE LAW, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. George E. B. Holding, Acting United States Attorney,
    Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Andrew Brown appeals his conviction by a jury of one
    count of unarmed bank robbery, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2113
    (a)
    (2000).
    Brown first argues that the evidence was insufficient to
    support the jury’s verdict in two respects. First, he asserts that
    the evidence did not prove his identity as the robber.           Second, he
    argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the bank’s
    deposits were federally insured on the day of the robbery.
    We review de novo the district court’s denial of Brown’s
    motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence.
    United States v. Gallimore, 
    247 F.3d 134
    , 136 (4th Cir. 2001).            The
    verdict 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).           “[S]ubstantial
    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. Burgos, 
    94 F.3d 849
    , 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).          In evaluating the sufficiency
    of the evidence, this court does not review the credibility of the
    witnesses and assumes that the jury resolved contradictions in
    testimony in favor of the Government.          United States v. Romer, 
    148 F.3d 359
    , 364 (4th Cir. 1998).
    - 2 -
    With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record
    and   conclude   that    the   evidence    was    sufficient.           There   was
    substantial circumstantial evidence tying Brown to the robbery.
    “The jury [is] entitled to reject the theory consistent with
    innocence and accept the one consistent with guilt so long as there
    [is] substantial evidence for its choice.”                  United States v.
    Garcia, 
    868 F.2d 114
    , 116 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, testimony from
    a bank employee that the deposits are FDIC insured was sufficient
    evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that the bank
    was insured at the time of the robbery.                  See United States v.
    Gallop, 
    838 F.2d 105
     (4th Cir. 1988).
    Brown challenges two evidentiary rulings by the district
    court.    First,    he   argues   that    the    court    erred    in   admitting
    testimony from a bank employee that the bank’s deposits are insured
    by the FDIC.     Second, he argues that the court erred in admitting
    testimony from a police detective that serial numbers on some of
    the currency found in Brown’s home matched recorded serial numbers
    on the bank’s “bait money” list.            We review the admission of
    evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Forrest, 
    429 F.3d 73
    , 79 (4th Cir. 2005).
    After reviewing the record, the district court’s ruling,
    and the parties’ briefs on appeal, we conclude that the district
    court did not err.       Both witnesses testified as to their personal
    knowledge, rationally based on their perceptions.                 Brown was free
    - 3 -
    to cross-examine them on the basis for their testimony, but the
    jury was free to accept it as credible.    We cannot say that the
    court “acted arbitrarily or irrationally in admitting evidence.”
    United States v. Williams, 
    445 F.3d 724
    , 732 (4th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 
    127 S. Ct. 314
     (2006).
    Accordingly, we affirm Brown’s conviction.   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
    - 4 -