United States v. Eric Flores , 677 F. App'x 121 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4360
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC NOE ARAUJO FLORES, a/k/a Eric Orellano Arujo, a/k/a
Eric Orellana Arujo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:15-cr-00320-LO-1)
Submitted: February 15, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph R. Conte, LAW OFFICE OF J. R. CONTE, Washington, D.C.;
Charles J. Soschin, LAW OFFICE OF C. J. SOSCHIN, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Michael J. Frank, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Noe Araujo Flores was convicted by a jury of four
counts of sex trafficking of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1591(a) (2012) (sex trafficking convictions); three counts of
foreign travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (2012) (foreign travel
convictions); one count of coercion and enticement, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (2012) (coercion and enticement
convictions); and one count of harboring an alien for an immoral
purpose, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1328 (2012), and he was
sentenced to 300 months in prison. Flores asserts that the
Government presented insufficient evidence to support his sex
trafficking, foreign travel, and coercion and enticement
convictions. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s denial of a Fed. R.
Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v.
Reed, 780 F.3d 260, 269 (4th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Cannon
v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 112 (2015). A defendant
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces “a heavy
burden[.]” United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129, 137 (4th Cir.
2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The jury verdict must
be sustained if “there is substantial evidence in the record,
when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to
support the conviction.” United States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83,
2
93 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“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.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). In fact,
“[r]eversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare
case where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United States
v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and conclude that,
viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, there was
substantial evidence to support Flores’ convictions.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. 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