United States v. Beard , 404 F. App'x 736 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4550
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BEVERLY J. BEARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cr-00141-CCB-1)
Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: December 8, 2010
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven G. Berry, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Kathleen
O’Connell Gavin, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Beverly J. Beard on three counts of
False Statement to a Federal Agency, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)
(2006), and one count of False Statement to the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”), 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(3) (2006). She
received a thirty-month sentence. Beard’s appellate counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), stating in his opinion there are no meritorious issues
for appeal but raising the issues of whether sufficient evidence
supports the jury’s verdict and whether trial counsel was
ineffective. The Government has declined to file a responsive
brief. Beard has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction bears a heavy burden.”
United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A jury’s 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); see United States v. Perkins,
470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2006). 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.” United States v. Alerre, 430
F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
2
omitted). We consider both circumstantial and direct evidence,
drawing all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the
Government’s favor. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333
(4th Cir. 2008). In resolving issues of substantial evidence,
we do not reassess the factfinder’s determination of witness
credibility, see United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th
Cir. 2008), and “can reverse a conviction on insufficiency
grounds only when the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United
States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the
transcript of the jury trial and the evidence introduced at that
trial, and conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support
the jury’s convictions.
Beard also maintains counsel below was ineffective.
Specifically, she claims that trial counsel erred in withdrawing
the motion to suppress; not asking for a breakdown of the
restitution; not challenging the jurors that were affiliated
with government officials and police officers; not objecting to
the several day break in trial; and presenting only a short
closing argument that addressed none of the issues at hand.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable
on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes that
counsel provided ineffective assistance. United States v.
3
Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). We find that
Beard’s claims are not ripe for review at this time.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and Beard’s pro se supplemental brief and supplement, and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that
counsel inform Beard, in writing, of her right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Beard
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 Beard. 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