United States v. Costner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT COSTNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-04-328)
Submitted: February 25, 2005 Decided: March 17, 2005
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Anne M. Chapman,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, Research and
Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Marc A. Bonora, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Costner was convicted by a magistrate judge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3401 (2000), of simple assault on a federal
employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (2000). He received 24
months’ probation. Costner appealed the magistrate judge’s ruling
to the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g)(2). The
district court affirmed. On appeal, Costner contends that there
was insufficient evidence of force to sustain his conviction and
that the district court employed the wrong standard of review on
appeal. We affirm.
Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g), on appeal from a conviction
and/or sentence imposed by a magistrate judge, the “defendant is
not entitled to a trial de novo by a district judge. The scope of
the appeal is the same as in an appeal to the court of appeals from
a judgment entered by a district judge.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
58(g)(2)(D). In determining whether sufficient evidence supports
a conviction, the appropriate inquiry is whether, taking the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any
reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,
80 (1942). In bench trials, “the judge weighs the evidence,
determines the credibility of the witnesses, and finds the facts .
. . [and] may select among conflicting inferences to be drawn from
the testimony.” United States v. Bales, 813 F.2d 1289, 1293 (4th
- 2 -
Cir. 1987). The standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence
is de novo. See United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the district
court’s order, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix.
We conclude that the district court did not employ the wrong
standard of review and that sufficient evidence supports Costner’s
conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Costner’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 -