Court Opinion

ID: 1001795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:00:52.522412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:29:21.800531
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4565

BRIAN KEITH STURGEON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-98-402)

Submitted: April 28, 2000

Decided: June 5, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joseph W. Kaestner, KAESTNER & PITNEY, P.C., Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, David
T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, G. Russell Stone,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Brian Keith Sturgeon appeals his conviction entered after a jury
trial for wire and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1343
(1994), a related conspiracy charge in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
(1994), money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i)
(1994), and making a false declaration to a grand jury in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1623 (1994). On appeal, Sturgeon contends that the dis-
trict court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal on
the money laundering and conspiracy counts. Finding no error on the
part of the district court, we affirm.

This Court reviews the district court's decision to deny a motion
for judgment of acquittal de novo. See United States v. Romer, 148
F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1141 (1999).
Where, as here, the motion is based on insufficient evidence, the rele-
vant question is not whether the reviewing court is convinced of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather whether the evidence, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient
for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Burgos, 94
F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc); United States v. Glasser,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). If substantial evidence exists to support a ver-
dict, the verdict must be sustained. See Glasser , 315 U.S. at 80. After
a careful review of the record, we are satisfied that the credit card pur-
chases that were the subject of the money laundering counts involved
the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity and were therefore suffi-
cient to provide the basis for Sturgeon's conviction. See United States
v. Wilkinson, 137 F.3d 214, 220 (4th Cir. 1998). Similarly, the cir-
cumstantial evidence of Sturgeon's agreement to join the criminal
conspiracy provided ample evidence on which a rational trier of fact
could find the elements of the conspiracy offense. See United States
v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Finding no merit to either of Sturgeon's assignments of error, we
affirm his conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

                     2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
i