United States v. Anthony Payne

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4344
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY LAMONT PAYNE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge.
(8:15-cr-00223-TDC-1)
Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: January 6, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Megan E. Coleman, MARCUSBONSIB, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Conor
Mulroe, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Hollis Raphael
Weisman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Anthony Lamont Payne of
involuntary manslaughter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1112
(2012). The district court sentenced Payne to 60 months of
imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Payne first challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction for involuntary manslaughter
arising from the victim’s death in an automobile collision.
Specifically, Payne asserts that the evidence failed to
establish that his actions caused the victim’s death. We review
a district court’s decision to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion
for a judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Smith,
451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006). A defendant challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. United States
v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). In determining
whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we
determine “whether there is substantial evidence in the record,
when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to
support the conviction.” United States v. Palacios, 677 F.3d
234, 248 (4th Cir. 2012) (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 omitted). Furthermore,
2
“[d]eterminations of credibility are within the sole province of
the jury and are not susceptible to judicial review.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1112 (2012), manslaughter is the
unlawful killing of a human being without malice; involuntary
manslaughter includes such killing in the commission of an
unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission of
a lawful act without due caution that might produce death.
United States v. Pardee, 368 F.2d 368, 373 (4th Cir. 1966). To
be convicted of involuntary manslaughter, the death must be
within the risk reasonably foreseeable by the defendant’s
conduct. United States v. Main, 113 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir.
1997). “Foreseeability is to be determined by what a reasonable
person would foresee as a reasonable probability within the risk
of the conduct engaged in.” Id.; see also United States v.
Wipf, 397 F.3d 632, 635 (8th Cir. 2005) (conviction for
involuntary manslaughter requires that defendant’s actions were
proximate cause of victim’s death). We have thoroughly reviewed
the record and conclude that there was sufficient evidence from
which the jury could conclude that Payne was guilty of
involuntary manslaughter.
Payne next argues that the district court erred in denying
his request for a reduction in offense level for acceptance of
responsibility. “We review the district court’s decision to
3
deny a reduction in the offense level based on the defendant's
acceptance of responsibility for clear error.” United States v.
Kise, 369 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir. 2004). “A finding is clearly
erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United
State v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal
quotations omitted). Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3E1.1 (2016), a defendant is entitled to a reduction in
offense level if he has promptly accepted responsibility for the
offense.
In order to receive a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, “the defendant must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that he has clearly recognized and affirmatively
accepted personal responsibility for his criminal conduct.”
Kise, 369 F.3d at 771 (internal quotation marks omitted). The
district court’s determination is entitled to great deference.
Id. Based on the evidence in the record and our review of the
relevant legal authorities, we conclude that the district court
did not err in denying Payne’s request for an offense level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
4
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5