United States v. Nobles , 257 F. App'x 679 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4394
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PAUL EDWARD NOBLES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00244-JAB)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 13, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Frank
Joseph Chut, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Edward Nobles appeals from his conviction by a jury
of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a) (2000), bank robbery with
a dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(d) (2000), using and
carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2000); and possession of an unregistered firearm, 26 U.S.C.
§§ 5861(d), 5871 (2000).
The evidence presented at Nobles’ trial, viewed in the
light most favorable to the Government, see United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 854 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc), was as follows.
On June 13, 2006, Nobles and Steven Lamonds entered the Lexington
State Bank in Davidson County, North Carolina, wearing t-shirts
over their heads. Lamonds was holding a sawed-off shotgun; Nobles
carried a blue bag. While Lamonds held the gun aimed at them, two
of the tellers entered the vault, one carrying the blue bag handed
to her by Nobles. The teller managed to include a dye pack in with
the money she placed in the blue bag. Lamonds and Nobles left the
bank with $190,940 in the blue bag and escaped in a pickup truck.
The men were apprehended a short time later.
The jury found Nobles guilty of all four counts of the
indictment and the district court sentenced him to a total of 177
months imprisonment. Nobles’ sole argument on appeal is that the
evidence was insufficient to prove that he “wilfully” participated
- 2 -
in the robbery or firearms offenses because, as he testified at
trial, he was acting under duress.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064,
1067 (4th Cir. 1997). “[A]n appellate court’s reversal of a
conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence should be confined
to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United
States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984). A jury’s
verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence
in the record to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942). In determining whether the evidence in the record
is substantial, this court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, and inquires whether there is evidence
that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to establish 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 all contradictions in the testimony in favor
of the government. United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th
Cir. 1997); United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.
1989). Where the evidence supports differing reasonable
interpretations, the jury decides which interpretation to credit.
Wilson, 118 F.3d at 234.
- 3 -
Nobles’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is
predicated entirely on his contention that the jury should have
credited his testimony that he acted under duress. However,
whether to credit Nobles’ version of events was entirely within the
jury’s province, and such credibility determinations will not be
reviewed on appeal.
We therefore affirm Nobles’ conviction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately addressed in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -