Court Opinion

ID: 9556343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 20:23:20.16355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:58.626719
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4087      Doc: 17         Filed: 08/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4087

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CURTIS RUSSELL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior U.S. District Court Judge. (1:21-cr-00237-TSE-TCB-
        1)

        Submitted: January 13, 2023                                       Decided: August 15, 2023

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jeffrey D. Zimmerman, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Alexandria,
        Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
        Andrew Ascencio, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas W. Traxler, Jr.,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4087      Doc: 17         Filed: 08/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Following a bench trial, a magistrate judge convicted Curtis Russell of vandalism

        in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.31(a)(3) for using a piece of a spark plug to smash a woman’s

        car window to then steal her wallet and use her credit cards at a nearby drug store. The

        magistrate judge sentenced Russell to six months’ imprisonment, and the district court

        upheld the conviction and sentence. Now on appeal, Russell challenges the sufficiency of

        the evidence presented against him at trial.

               Reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence following a bench trial, “‘we must uphold

        a guilty verdict if, taking the view most favorable to the Government, there is substantial

        evidence to support the verdict. Substantial evidence means evidence that a reasonable

        finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a

        defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Landersman, 886 F.3d

        393, 406 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir.

        2009)). In conducting this review, we evaluate factfinding for clear error and issues of law

        de novo. See United States v. Bursey, 416 F.3d 301, 305–306 (4th Cir. 2005). Having

        carefully reviewed the entire record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that

        substantial evidence supported the magistrate judge’s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm

        Russell’s conviction.    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

                                                       2