United States v. Holton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4646
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE J. HOLTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-87)
Submitted: March 9, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Writing and
Research Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank
D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine
Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Willie J. Holton was convicted by a jury of willfully
failing to pay court-ordered child support from on or about June
1998 through September 15, 2003, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 228(a)(3) (West 2000). Holton appeals his conviction, asserting
that the evidence was insufficient to support it. We affirm.
Holton contends that the Government failed to prove that
he acted willfully. To determine if there was sufficient evidence
to support a conviction, this court considers whether, taking the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, substantial
evidence supports the jury’s verdict. Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476, 495
(4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2906 (2004). Substantial
evidence is defined as “that evidence which ‘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. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2003)
(quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996)
(en banc)). The court reviews both direct and circumstantial
evidence and permits “the [G]overnment the benefit of all
reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be
established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th
Cir. 1982). “[A]n appellate court’s reversal of a conviction on
grounds of insufficient evidence should be ‘confined to cases where
- 2 -
the prosecution’s failure is clear.’” United States v. Jones, 735
F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984) (quoting Burks v. United States, 437
U.S. 1, 17 (1978)). Witness credibility is within the sole
province of the jury, and the court will not reassess the
credibility of testimony. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56,
60 (4th Cir. 1989).
With these standards in mind, we conclude from the
materials on appeal that sufficient evidence supports the jury’s
conclusion that Holton willfully failed to pay child support during
the period charged in the indictment. See United State v. Mattice,
186 F.3d 219, 225 (2d Cir. 1999) (defining willfulness as
“voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty”)(internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm
Holton'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
- 3 -