Court Opinion

ID: 9409080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 21:00:51.178006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.793036
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4539      Doc: 38         Filed: 07/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4539

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SHANECA J. MOSLEY, a/k/a Shaneca J. Moseley, a/k/a Shaneca J. Hibbler,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:21-cr-00054-JAG-RJK-1)

        Submitted: June 29, 2023                                          Decided: July 13, 2023

        Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Maureen Leigh White, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber,
        United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Brian J. Samuels, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4539      Doc: 38         Filed: 07/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               After a jury trial, Shaneca J. Mosley was convicted of three counts of false

        representation of a Social Security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B)

        (Counts 1 through 3), one count of providing a false statement on a loan application, in

        violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (Count 4), and three counts of aggravated identity theft, in

        violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (c) (Counts 5 through 7). Mosley asserts that the

        evidence was insufficient to sustain Counts 1, 3, 5, and 7. We affirm.

               Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a trial court, on the

        defendant’s motion, to “enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence

        is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). We review the district

        court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion de novo. United States v. Smith, 54 F.4th 755, 766

        (4th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 1097 (2023). “In doing so, we view the evidence

        in the light most favorable to the prosecution and decide whether substantial evidence

        supports the verdict. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable fact-finder could

        accept as adequate and sufficient to support a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Defendants bear a heavy burden under this standard.” Id. (citations and internal quotation

        marks omitted). While we “review the district court’s sufficiency conclusion de novo,” we

        will “reverse a conviction only where no reasonable juror could have found the essential

        elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Robertson, 68 F.4th

        855, 862 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).             We consider both

        “circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow the government the benefit of all

        reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established, and we

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4539         Doc: 38      Filed: 07/13/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in testimony in favor of the Government.”

        United States v. Hicks, 64 F.4th 546, 550 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). In fact, “[a] conviction may rest entirely on circumstantial evidence.” United

        States v. Dennis, 19 F.4th 656, 665 (4th Cir. 2021).

               We have considered Mosley’s appellate arguments and the evidence offered at trial

        and conclude that Mosley’s arguments are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the

        judgment. 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

                                                     3