UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4300

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MENYELEK M. MAYNARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00136-LMB-1)

Submitted: May 23, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, April N. 

Russo, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4300 Doc: 38 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Menyelek M. Maynard appeals his judgment of conviction for assault resulting in 

serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6), reckless driving, in violation 

of 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (adopting Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-862), and speeding, in violation of 36 

C.F.R. § 4.21(c). Maynard was driving his car at a high rate of speed on the George 

Washington Memorial Parkway when he had a collision with a motorcycle rider causing 

serious injuries to the rider. Maynard challenges the sufficiency of the assault and reckless 

driving convictions. We affirm.

Because Maynard did not move for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 

at trial, review is for plain error. United States v. Wallace, 515 F.3d 327, 331-33 

(4th Cir. 2008). “In order . . . to prove that the jury’s decision constituted plain error, 

(1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain, meaning obvious or clear under 

current law; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights. Even if these criteria are met, 

the error will not be noticed unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of the proceedings.” Id. at 332 (citation omitted). As we review for plain error, 

we may not “assess witness credibility” and must “assume that the jury resolved any 

conflicting evidence in the prosecution's favor.” United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 

219 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Maynard’s sole argument is that he presented uncontroverted evidence that satisfied 

the four-part test applicable to the justification or necessity defense. To support such a 

defense, the defendant must produce evidence that he:

1) was under unlawful and present threat of death or serious bodily injury;

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4300 Doc: 38 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

2) did not recklessly place himself in a situation where he would be forced to engage 

in criminal conduct;

3) had no reasonable legal alternative (to both the criminal act and the avoidance of 

the threatened harm); and

4) a direct causal relationship between the criminal action and the avoidance of the 

threatened harm.

United States v. Ricks, 573 F.3d 198, 202 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). The affirmative defense must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 

United States v. Mooney, 497 F.3d 397, 408 n.2 (4th Cir. 2007).

We conclude that there was no plain error. The jury did not believe Maynard’s 

claim that he was being pursued by a gun-wielding driver that caused him to accelerate to 

a high rate of speed just prior to the collision with the motorcyclist. Accordingly, we affirm 

the judgment of 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4300 Doc: 38 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3