Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenishca WALIZADA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-07
Citations: 438 F. App'x 166
Docket Number: No. 10-5181
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenishca WALIZADA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 438
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenishca WALIZADA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-5181.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 29, 2011.
Decided: July 7, 2011.
Cary S. Greenberg, Caroline E. Costle, Greenbergcostle, P.C., McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, William H. Jones, II, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Gordon D. Kromberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenishca Walizada appeals his jury conviction for structuring financial transactions to evade reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a) (2006). The court sentenced Walizada to two years' probation. We affirm.
Walizada argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury's finding that he had structured or attempted to structure a financial transaction and that the language of the Code of Federal Regulations defining a structured transaction is ambiguous. This Court reviews a sufficiency of the evidence challenge by determining whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the trial evidence "could support any rational determination of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Young, 609 F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir.2010). The evidence adduced at trial was clearly sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Further, we reject Walizada's contention that the language in the applicable regulations is ambiguous.
We therefore affirm Walizada's conviction and sentence. 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.