UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-4385

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAMELA R. ANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-po-00001-TLW-1)

Submitted: December 21, 2020 Decided: January 4, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy A. Thompson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL 

PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter M. McCoy, Jr., 

United States Attorney, Tommie DeWayne Pearson, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pamela R. Anderson appeals the district court’s order affirming her conviction by a 

magistrate judge for third degree criminal domestic violence, in violation of S.C. Code 

Ann. § 16-25-20(A), as assimilated by the Assimilated Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13. 

Anderson contends that the Government failed to present sufficient evidence to support her 

conviction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction. United 

States v. Barefoot, 754 F.3d 226, 233 (4th Cir. 2014). We must uphold a guilty verdict 

when, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational 

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709, 715 (2016) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider the evidence “in 

cumulative context” to determine “the complete picture that the evidence presents.” United 

States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc), and “draw[] all reasonable 

inferences from the facts” in favor of the prosecution. United States v. Denton, 944 F.3d 

170, 179 (4th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 140 

S. Ct. 2585 (2020). 

To sustain a conviction of criminal domestic violence in the third degree, the 

Government must prove that the defendant (1) “cause[d] physical harm or injury to [her] 

own household member;” or (2) “offer[ed] or attempt[ed] to cause physical harm or injury 

to [her] own household member with apparent present ability under circumstances 

reasonably creating fear of imminent peril.” § 16-25-20(A). Under § 16-25-20(A), an 
3

offer or attempt to cause harm includes a “threat to inflict physical harm or injury.” United 

States v. Drummond, 925 F.3d 681, 691 (4th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 976 (2020). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that there was sufficient evidence 

from which a trier of fact could conclude that Anderson offered or attempted to harm her 

former husband under circumstances reasonably creating fear of imminent peril.

Accordingly, we affirm. 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