United States v. Thompson ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4353
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TARA ANDERSON THOMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:05-cr-00539-DCN)
Submitted: February 23, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tara Anderson Thompson was convicted after a jury trial
of one count of conspiracy to launder money and to engage in
monetary transactions in property derived from drug distribution,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (h), 1957 (2000),
one count of engaging in a monetary transaction in criminally
derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a) (2000), and
one count of aiding and abetting the distribution of marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 2 (2000). The district court sentenced Thompson to sixty-three
months of imprisonment. She appeals her conviction and sentence.
On appeal, Thompson’s counsel filed an Anders* brief in
which he states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but suggests that Thompson’s conspiracy conviction should be
reversed because the Government failed to establish that Thompson
actually knew of the illegal origin of the funds in question.
Thompson has also filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting
several claims related to her conviction and sentence. The
Government responds that the evidence was sufficient to sustain
Thompson’s conviction of money laundering conspiracy.
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
*
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
- 2 -
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, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the government, and inquire 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, we do not review the
credibility of the witnesses and assume that the jury resolved all
contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. United
States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998).
To prove Thompson participated in a conspiracy to launder
money, the Government must “prove that (1) a conspiracy to commit
. . . money laundering was in existence, and (2) during the
conspiracy, the defendant knew that the proceeds . . . had been
derived from an illegal activity, and knowingly joined in the
conspiracy.” United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693-94 & n.14
(4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1925 (2006). Counsel
asserts only that the evidence was insufficient to establish that
Thompson knew that the money involved was derived from illegal
- 3 -
activity. Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence
was sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding of guilt.
We have considered the allegations of error asserted in
Thompson’s pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without
merit. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Thompson’s conviction and sentence. We deny
Thompson’s motion to remand. This court requires that counsel
inform Thompson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Thompson
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Thompson.
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 -