Opinion ID: 2756539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Evidence Supports the Verdict as to All

Text: Counts. Burnett argues that the District Court erred by failing to grant his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on any count. His argument before us is one succinct sentence: “We respectfully submit that the evidence adduced at trial – even 19 when evaluated in the light most favorable to the government – was insufficient to uphold the jury’s decision.” Appellant’s br. 8-9. We are satisfied that the argument is groundless. An argument in an appellate brief “consisting of no more than a conclusory assertion such as the one made here (without even a citation to the record) will be deemed waived.” Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 178 (3d Cir. 1997). Setting aside the waiver, we review Burnett’s conclusory claim for plain error, as Burnett failed to move in the District Court for a judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence to support the government’s case. United States v. Gordon, 290 F.3d 539, 547 (3d Cir. 2002). Pursuant to this standard, we review the argument “only for a manifest miscarriage of justice – the record must be devoid of evidence of guilt or the evidence must be so tenuous that a conviction is shocking.” United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 449 (5th Cir. 2004). Such an error requires a defendant to establish that the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in even permitting the jury to deliberate. See United States v. Wright-Barker, 784 F.2d 161, 171 (3d Cir. 1986). An appellate court’s review of a ruling by a district court that the evidence supported a conviction requires it to determine whether, “after 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.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). Consequently, a reviewing court “must be ever vigilant . . . not to usurp the role of the jury by weighing credibility and assigning weight to the evidence, or by substituting [its] judgment for that of the jury.” United States v. CaraballoRodriguez, 726 F.3d 418, 430 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123, 133 (3d Cir. 2005)); see 20 also Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S.Ct. 2, 4 (2011) (“A reviewing court may set aside the jury’s verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the jury.”). Consequently, even if Burnett had more thoroughly fleshed out his argument, we would determine that his sufficiency of the evidence argument is not meritorious. The government presented an avalanche of evidence, including eyewitness identifications, co-defendant testimony, and DNA evidence, demonstrating that Burnett committed the gunpoint robbery. The evidence was more than sufficient; it was overwhelming. Thus, the evidence supported Burnett’s conviction on all counts.