United States v. Kenishca Walizada

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5181
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KENISHCA WALIZADA,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00148-CMH-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2011 Decided: July 7, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cary S. Greenberg, Caroline E. Costle, GREENBERGCOSTLE, P.C.,
McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United
States Attorney, William H. Jones, II, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Gordon D. Kromberg, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenishca Walizada appeals his jury conviction for
structuring financial transactions to evade reporting
requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a) (2006). The
court sentenced Walizada to two years’ probation. We affirm.
Walizada argues that the evidence was not sufficient
to support the jury’s finding that he had structured or
attempted to structure a financial transaction and that the
language of the Code of Federal Regulations defining a
structured transaction is ambiguous. This Court reviews a
sufficiency of the evidence challenge by determining whether,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, the trial evidence “could support any rational
determination of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United
States v. Young, 609 F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir. 2010). The
evidence adduced at trial was clearly sufficient to support the
jury’s verdict. Further, we reject Walizada’s contention that
the language in the applicable regulations is ambiguous.
We therefore affirm Walizada’s conviction and
sentence. 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
2