US v. Steven Turrentine, No. 09-5176 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5176 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN ANTHONY TURRENTINE, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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) (2006). court s his denial of Turrentine Federal Rule of contests Criminal the trial Procedure 29 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. United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 185 2007). reasonable If the evidence interpretations, the supports jury different, decides which interpretation to believe. United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). Thus, a defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. United States 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 Stephens, 482 F.3d 669, 673 (4th Cir. 2007). be convicted of a § 924(c) charge on States v. 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 have that the the reviewed Government conviction. At the evidence produced trial, 3 in this sufficient the case evidence Government and to presented evidence from Turrentine s coconspirators, who were eyewitnesses to both the planning and the execution of the robbery. The witnesses his testimony coconspirator s robbery use established of reasonably a firearm foreseeable that not during to only the was course Turrentine, of it the was 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 by Turrentine the suggests witnesses this hope court for should shorter instead sentences. rely on the 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 or review the credibility of the witnesses on appeal. United 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 conflicts in the evidence presented. ). 4 and resolves any For the foregoing court s judgment. facts and materials legal before reasons, we affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
