US v. Steven Turrentine

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5176 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN ANTHONY TURRENTINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00076-GBL-1) Submitted: October 20, 2010 Decided: November 3, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, G. Zachary Terwilliger, Jonathan L. Fahey, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Turrentine challenges his conviction for using a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) court's denial of (2006). his Federal Turrentine Rule of contests Criminal the trial 29 Procedure motion for acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm. This court reviews de novo the denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Alerre, 430 When a Rule 29 motion was based on a claim of insufficient evidence, the jury's verdict must be sustained "if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the government, to support it." United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 244 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). This court "ha[s] defined `substantial evidence' as `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.'" Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693 (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996)). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we "must consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those 2 sought to be established." United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). Finally, we may not weigh the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses. (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 185 If the evidence the "supports different, which reasonable interpretations, jury decides interpretation to believe." 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d Thus, a defendant challenging the United States sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). To prove a violation of § 924(c)(1), the government must demonstrate either that the defendant "use[d] or carrie[d] a firearm" "during and in relation to any crime of violence," or that the defendant "possesse[d] a firearm" "in furtherance of any such crime." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); United States v. Stephens, 482 F.3d 669, 673 (4th Cir. 2007). be convicted of a § 924(c) charge on "A defendant may the basis of a coconspirator's use of a gun if the use was in furtherance of the conspiracy and was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant." United States v. Wilson, 135 F.3d 291, 305 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102, 110-11 (4th Cir. 1990)). We conclude sustain that the have the reviewed Government At the evidence in this case and to produced trial, 3 sufficient evidence conviction. the Government presented evidence from Turrentine's coconspirators, who were eyewitnesses to both the planning and the execution of the robbery. witnesses' testimony use of established a firearm that during to not the only course was of it The his the was coconspirator's robbery reasonably foreseeable Turrentine, specifically planned by the group. Turrentine urges us to ignore the testimony supporting his conviction on the grounds that it was "self-serving" and motivated Turrentine by the witnesses' this court hope for shorter sentences. on the suggests should instead rely testimony of the only witness who denied that the robbery plan included the use of any weapons and denied seeing any firearms on the morning of the robbery. Turrentine's argument ignores the standard of review we are bound to apply. This court does not "weigh the evidence United or review the credibility of the witnesses" on appeal. States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997) Rather, "[t]hose functions are reserved for the jury." Id. The jury in this case chose which set of competing testimony to believe, and we will not disturb that credibility determination on appeal. See Murphy, 35 F.3d at 148 ("The jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the evidence presented."). 4 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's judgment. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials would decisional process. AFFIRMED 5