UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4817

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JUVENILE MALE, #4, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00006-FL-4) 

Submitted: November 30, 2009 Decided: January 4, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert J. McAfee, MCAFEE LAW, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, 

Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Juvenile male (Appellant) appeals the district court’s 

finding that he was a juvenile delinquent. The court determined 

that Appellant committed three acts of delinquency: conspiracy 

to commit larceny, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 661 (2006); 

breaking and entering, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-

54(a) (2007), as assimilated by 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 13, 5032 (2006); 

and larceny, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 661, 5032 (2006). 

On appeal, Appellant argues that the district court erred in 

denying his motion to dismiss the criminal information as barred 

by the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that the court erred in 

denying his motions for judgment of acquittal because the 

evidence was insufficient to establish that he participated in 

the charged crimes. We affirm. 

 Appellant first argues that his prosecution in the 

district court violated his rights against double jeopardy 

because the Commanding Officer of the Marine Corps Base had 

already taken punitive action against him. This court reviews 

double jeopardy issues de novo. United States v. Holbrook, 368 

F.3d 415, 424 (4th Cir. 2004). “The Clause protects only 

against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the 

same offense.” Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997). 

In analyzing this issue, we follow the framework established in 

Hudson. 552 U.S. at 99-100. Our review of the record leads us 

2 
to conclude that the district court properly denied Appellant’s 

motion to dismiss on Double Jeopardy grounds. 

 Appellant next argues that the district court erred in 

denying his motions for judgment of acquittal because the 

evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt. He does not 

contest that the charged crimes occurred, but asserts that the 

evidence did not establish that he was involved in the offenses. 

The standard of review in criminal cases where the 

district court sits in judgment without a jury is 

well-settled. We review findings on factual issues 

other than the ultimate issue of guilt using the 

clearly erroneous test. On the ultimate issue of 

guilt, we review the district court’s finding to 

determine if it is supported by substantial evidence. 

United States v. Lockhart, 382 F.3d 447, 451 (4th Cir. 2004). 

In determining whether the evidence in the record is 

substantial, this court views the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Government, and inquires whether there is 

evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as 

adequate and sufficient to establish a defendant’s guilt beyond 

a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 

(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In this case we find that the 

district court properly denied Appellant’s motions for judgment 

of acquittal as the evidence was sufficient to establish his 

guilt. 

 Accordingly we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

3 
4 

conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED