UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4485

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBIN SNIPES PERRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00032-WO-1)

Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 3, 2012

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, PA, Durham, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, Acting United States 

Attorney, Frank J. Chut, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robin Snipes Perry appeals her jury conviction on four 

counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West 

2000 & Supp. 2011), based on her alleged scheme to defraud her 

employer, Becton, Dickinson & Company (“BDC”). On appeal, Perry 

argues that the district court erred in denying her Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for acquittal, abused its 

discretion in denying her pretrial motion in limine, and abused 

its discretion in admitting a prior consistent statement. 

Finding no error, we affirm. 

Perry finds fault with the district court’s denial of 

her motion in limine and admission of a prior consistent 

statement. Perry’s motion in limine sought to exclude evidence 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Rule 404(b), however, 

applies only to evidence of extrinsic acts, not evidence of 

those acts that are intrinsic to the charged offenses. United 

States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302, 326 (4th Cir. 2009). Upon 

review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that the evidence of Perry’s uncharged 

conduct was intrinsic to the charged offenses or in denying the 

motion in limine. See United States v. Hornsby, 666 F.3d 296, 

309 (4th Cir. 2012) (providing standard of review). 

Turning to the remaining evidentiary issue, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 
3

admitting a witness’ prior consistent statement to rebut the 

implication on cross-examination that he fabricated his trial 

testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B); United States v. 

Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard 

of review). 

Finally, Perry challenges the denial of her motion for 

acquittal. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a 

Rule 29 motion. United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 

(4th Cir. 2006). A jury verdict must be upheld “if there is 

substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Government, to support it.” Id. “[S]ubstantial evidence is 

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.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We consider both circumstantial and direct evidence, 

drawing all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the 

government’s favor. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 

(4th Cir. 2008). However, “[w]e may not weigh the evidence or 

review the credibility of the witnesses [because] [t]hose 

functions are reserved for the jury.” United States v. Wilson, 

118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal citation omitted). 

Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, we 

conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence from 

which the jury could conclude that Perry committed mail fraud. 
4

See United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 666 (4th Cir. 2001) 

(providing elements of mail fraud); see also Neder v. United 

States, 527 U.S. 1, 25 (1999) (stating that scheme to defraud 

must involve material misrepresentation). Thus, the district 

court did not err in denying the Rule 29 motion. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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