Court Opinion

ID: 996505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:52:12.94732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:06.510340
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                       No. 97-5030

RONNEY O. GILLIAM,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-97-136)

Submitted: September 15, 1998

Decided: October 16, 1998

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert Charles Neeley, Jr., ROBINSON, SHELTON, MALONE &
ANDERSON, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,
United States Attorney, Robert F. Porcarelli, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Ronney O. Gilliam appeals from the district court's
order affirming a magistrate judge's decision after a bench trial find-
ing Appellant guilty of larceny of government property, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 641 (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the
record and the magistrate judge's findings, and finding no error, we
affirm the judgment of conviction.

Gilliam activated an electronic monitoring system as he was
attempting to exit the Navy Exchange at Norfolk Naval Base. A sub-
sequent search of Gilliam's shopping bags by store security staff
revealed a cellular telephone which was not listed on any of the sales
receipts in his possession. Gilliam testified at trial that he left his cart
unattended for a minute or two. When he returned, he saw a young
woman "fumbling through" his cart. After he confronted her, she left.
The defense argued at trial that the young woman had intended to use
Gilliam as a "mule" to take the telephone out of the Navy Exchange.
On appeal, Gilliam contends that there was insufficient evidence to
support his conviction.

Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction so long as, "viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any ratio-
nal trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979) (emphasis in original); see United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d
1430, 1437 (4th Cir. 1993). An appellate court does not review the
credibility of witnesses. See United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56,
60 (4th Cir. 1989).

We find the evidence sufficient to sustain Gilliam's larceny convic-
tion. The magistrate judge had the opportunity to judge the demeanor
and credibility of Gilliam and elected not to credit his testimony. We

                      2
will not disturb this judgment. Accordingly, we find that a rational
trier of fact could have concluded that Gilliam knowingly placed the
telephone in his bag. For these reasons, Gilliam's conviction is
affirmed. 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

                    3