United States v. Curtis Russell

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4087 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4087
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CURTIS RUSSELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior U.S. District Court Judge. (1:21-cr-00237-TSE-TCB-
1)
Submitted: January 13, 2023 Decided: August 15, 2023
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Jeffrey D. Zimmerman, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
Andrew Ascencio, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas W. Traxler, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4087 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/15/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial, a magistrate judge convicted Curtis Russell of vandalism
in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.31(a)(3) for using a piece of a spark plug to smash a woman’s
car window to then steal her wallet and use her credit cards at a nearby drug store. The
magistrate judge sentenced Russell to six months’ imprisonment, and the district court
upheld the conviction and sentence. Now on appeal, Russell challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence presented against him at trial.
Reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence following a bench trial, “‘we must uphold
a guilty verdict if, taking the view most favorable to the Government, there is substantial
evidence to support the verdict. Substantial evidence means 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. Landersman, 886 F.3d
393, 406 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir.
2009)). In conducting this review, we evaluate factfinding for clear error and issues of law
de novo. See United States v. Bursey, 416 F.3d 301, 305–306 (4th Cir. 2005). Having
carefully reviewed the entire record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that
substantial evidence supported the magistrate judge’s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm
Russell’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2