Court Opinion

ID: 9384756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 21:01:03.24193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.271891
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4861      Doc: 61         Filed: 04/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 6

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 19-4859

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        EDWARD MOORE, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant,

                                               No. 19-4861

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        EDWARD MOORE, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00007-BO-2; 5:18-cr-00405-BO-1)

        Submitted: March 6, 2023                                           Decided: April 3, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4861      Doc: 61         Filed: 04/03/2023    Pg: 2 of 6

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON, STYERS & MAY, PLLC,
        Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney,
        David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Leonard K. Champaign, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4861      Doc: 61         Filed: 04/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               Edward Moore, Jr., was convicted after a jury trial of Hobbs Act robbery of One

        Main Financial on October 19, 2016, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (count 1),

        discharging a firearm during and in relation to the crime of violence charged in count 1 on

        October 19, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (count 2), possession of a firearm

        by a convicted felon on October 19, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (count 3),

        armed bank robbery of Bank of America on November 10, 2016, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 2113(a), (d) (count 4), discharging a firearm during and in relation to the crime of

        violence charged in count 4 on November 10, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)

        (count 5), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon on November 10, in violation of

        18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (count 6), armed bank robbery of Bank of America on

        December 7, 2016, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), (d)

        (count 7), discharging a firearm during and in relation to the crime of violence charged in

        count 7 on December 7, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (count 8),

        possession of a firearm by a convicted felon on December 7, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (count 9), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon on

        December 12, 2016, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (count 10). The district

        court sentenced Moore to a total of 1,260 months’ imprisonment. After imposing this

        sentence, the district court revoked Moore’s supervised release imposed following his

        convictions for carjacking and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2119,

        and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and aiding and

        abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), and sentenced him to a

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4861      Doc: 61         Filed: 04/03/2023     Pg: 4 of 6

        concurrent term of 51 months’ imprisonment. In these appeals from the criminal judgment

        and the revocation judgment, Moore challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

        his convictions on counts 1 through 10 and the reasonableness of his 1,260-month prison

        term. We affirm.

               “A defendant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden.”

        United States v. Small, 944 F.3d 490, 499 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). “Although we review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence de novo, our role

        is limited to considering whether there is substantial evidence, taking the view most

        favorable to the Government, to support the conviction.” United States v. Ziegler, 1 F.4th

        219, 232 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is

        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.” Id. (cleaned up). “We do

        not reweigh the evidence or the credibility of witnesses, but assume that the jury resolved

        all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government.” Id. (internal quotation

        marks omitted). “This high burden reflects our reluctance to overturn the jury’s verdict in

        all but the most egregious cases.” Id. at 232-33.

               Although Moore argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions,

        he does not explain why this is so with respect to his conviction on count 10. Moore,

        further, does not dispute that the Government provided sufficient evidence to show that the

        robber’s conduct met the elements for each of counts 1 through 9. He argues, rather, only

        that his identity as the person who committed these offenses was not sufficiently

        established. We conclude, however, after reviewing the evidence adduced, that it was

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4861       Doc: 61          Filed: 04/03/2023      Pg: 5 of 6

        sufficient for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that Moore was the robber, aider and

        abettor, firearm discharger, and firearm possessor at issue in counts 1 through 9.

               Turning to Moore’s challenge to his 1,260-month prison sentence, we “review[] all

        sentences-whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range-under

        a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard,” United States v. Torres-Reyes, 952 F.3d 147,

        151 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted), for procedural and substantive

        reasonableness, United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020). In evaluating

        procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly calculated the

        defendant’s Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for an appropriate

        sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explained the

        selected sentence. Id. When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an

        individualized assessment based on the facts presented, state in open court the reasons

        supporting its chosen sentence, address the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments in favor of a

        particular sentence and, if it rejects them, explain why in a manner allowing for meaningful

        appellate review. United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019). If there

        are no procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence,

        evaluating “the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the sentencing court

        abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth

        in § 3553(a).” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). “A sentence that is within or below a properly calculated [Sentencing]

        Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.” United States v. Bennett,

        986 F.3d 389, 401 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “On appeal, such a

                                                       5
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4861      Doc: 61         Filed: 04/03/2023      Pg: 6 of 6

        presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when

        measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id. (cleaned up).

               Moore does not dispute that the district court properly calculated his Guidelines

        range on counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 and his Guidelines sentences on counts 2, 5, and 8,

        and the district court properly heard Moore’s allocution and afforded counsel opportunities

        to argue. Moore asserts that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation for

        its sentencing decision, but we reject this argument.           The court explained that

        the 1,260-month prison term was warranted in light of the nature and circumstances of

        Moore’s offense conduct and his history and characteristics, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).

        Contrary to Moore’s argument, the court’s explanation was sufficient to support the

        imposition of this term. On substantive reasonableness, Moore does not point to any

        factors overcoming the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines

        prison term. Although Moore summarily asserts that the district court did not adequately

        account for his history and characteristics in imposing sentence, he does not explain why

        this is so. Moore, further, offers no argument challenging the revocation judgment.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. 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

                                                     6