UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4623

JOHN PATRICK DOYLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

Robert C. Chambers, District Judge.

(CR-98-67)

Submitted: February 26, 1999

Decided: March 22, 1999

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William D. Turner, III, CRANDALL, PYLES, HAVILAND & TURNER, L.L.P., Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A.

Betts, United States Attorney, L. Anna Crawford, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Patrick Doyle appeals his conviction for conspiracy

to commit an offense or defraud the United States in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 371 (1994), possessing counterfeit Federal Reserve notes in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (1994), and aiding and abetting the uttering of counterfeit Federal Reserve notes in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2, 472 (1994). On appeal, Doyle argues that his conspiracy conviction should be vacated because his charged co-conspirator was acquitted, resulting in an inconsistent verdict, and that insufficient evidence

existed to support all counts of his conviction. Finding no error, we

affirm.

Appellant Doyle and his son are citizens of the United Kingdom

and residents of Liverpool, England. In December 1995, Appellant

Doyle and his son made the acquaintance of Teresa Tilley, also a

British citizen, but permanently residing in the United States in Charlton Heights, West Virginia. In the spring of 1997, Doyle telephoned

Tilley and discussed his plan to come to the United States and pass

counterfeit United States currency. Tilley agreed to join Doyle in the

plan. Over the next eight months, Doyle sent shipments of counterfeit

fifty dollar Federal Reserve notes.

On February 15, 1998, Doyle and his son, John Joseph Doyle (Joe

Doyle), arrived in Washington, D.C. Lee Ann Tilley, Teresa Tilley's

daughter, and her boyfriend, Josh LeMasters, drove from West Virginia and met the Doyles at the airport. They all checked into a hotel.

In the Doyles' hotel room, Lee Ann Tilley and LeMasters observed

Doyle unpack several bags of counterfeit money and discuss with Joe

Doyle the manner in which they would pass the counterfeit notes. Lee

Ann Tilley and LeMasters drove the Doyles to Teresa Tilley's house

in Charlton Heights, West Virginia, on February 16, 1998.

The next day, February 17, Doyle showed Tilley a large portion of

the counterfeit notes that he smuggled into the United States. Some

of the notes were sewn into the shoulder pads of his overcoat. Later

the same day, Tilley drove Doyle and Joe Doyle into town so that

they could begin to pass the counterfeit notes. Tilley and Doyle suc-

 2
cessfully passed fifty dollar notes at five businesses. On three of these

occasions, Doyle stayed in the car and instructed Tilley to purchase

an inexpensive item and return the legitimate change to him.

The following day, Tilley and Joe Doyle went to a local video

store. Joe Doyle purchased a carton of cigarettes with a counterfeit

note and left the store. The store clerk was suspicious of the authenticity of the bill and Joe Doyle's nervous manner and immediately

called the police. On February 19, 1998, United States Secret Service

agents and local law enforcement arrived at Tilley's residence. Tilley

consented to a search of her home. The officers found a plastic bag

containing $8850 of counterfeit fifty dollar notes floating in the water

tank of a toilet. After the discovery of the notes, Tilley confessed her

involvement in the Doyles' scheme. Tilley subsequently pled guilty

to one count of passing a counterfeit note.

The Doyles' cases proceeded to a jury trial. The jury convicted

Appellant Doyle of seven of eight charged counts, including the conspiracy count. The jury convicted Joe Doyle of only two counts: possession of counterfeit notes and passing counterfeit notes. The jury

acquitted Joe Doyle of the conspiracy count.

First, Doyle argues that his conviction for conspiracy and his son's

acquittal on the same charge resulted in inconsistent verdicts and

therefore his verdict must be vacated. Doyle filed pro se post-trial

motions arguing that the inconsistent verdicts were improper. The district court denied them based upon sound circuit precedent. Doyle

acknowledges that this court has held in several cases that inconsistent verdicts are not improper. However, he argues that allowing

inconsistent verdicts to stand is not proper and the court should reconsider the issue. This court has upheld inconsistent conspiracy verdicts

even when all other co-conspirators were acquitted. See United States

v. Thomas, 900 F.2d 37, 40 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Vogt, 910

F.2d 1184, 1203 (4th Cir. 1990). We therefore find that the district

court properly denied the motion for a new trial and allowed the conspiracy verdict to stand.

Next, Doyle alleges that there was insufficient evidence to convict

him on any count. He principally bases his challenge upon the lack

of direct physical evidence linking him to the counterfeit notes. We

 3
sustain a conviction if any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt based upon

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. See

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Circumstantial evidence must be weighed as direct evidence would be. See United

States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may be sufficient, even if that

witness is an accomplice. See United States v. Manbeck, 744 F.2d

360, 392 (4th Cir. 1984). Credibility determinations are strictly a matter for the trier of fact, and will not be reviewed on appeal. See United

States v. Johnson, 55 F.3d 976, 979 (4th Cir. 1995).

Both Teresa and Lee Ann Tilley testified at trial. They fully testified to their knowledge of the Doyles' plan to pass the counterfeit

notes throughout the United States. Appellant Doyle also met another

inmate, Ronald Christian, while he was detained at a regional jail.

Doyle confided to Christian and admitted his scheme to pass counterfeit notes throughout the United States and how he used Tilley's

assistance. Christian testified to these facts at trial. This is sufficient

evidence to sustain the conspiracy conviction.

The Government presented overwhelming evidence at trial of

Doyle's knowing possession of counterfeit notes. The Government

presented the physical evidence of fifteen latent fingerprints belonging to Doyle on counterfeit notes taken from Tilley's house. Several

witnesses testified to their observance of Doyle in possession of the

notes. Therefore, we also find the evidence sufficient to sustain the

possession conviction.

Finally, Doyle contests his conviction for aiding and abetting the

passing of counterfeit notes. Tilley testified to the February 17, 1998

"passing spree" during which Doyle instructed her to go into stores,

purchase an inexpensive item, and return the change to him. In addition, Christian testified that Doyle admitted to him that he used Tilley

to pass the counterfeit notes. We therefore find that sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions on these counts.

We note that Doyle filed a petition for rehearing contemporaneously with his brief based upon his anticipation that a panel of the

court would not reconsider the court's holdings on inconsistent ver-

 4
dicts. A petition for rehearing may not be filed until after the entry

of judgment and thus is premature when filed with the appeal brief.

See Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). Doyle must therefore refile the petition

for rehearing, if he so desires, upon entry of 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

 5