US v. Juvenile Male, No. 08-4817 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4817 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUVENILE MALE, #4, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00006-FL-4) Submitted: November 30, 2009 Decided: January 4, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert J. McAfee, MCAFEE LAW, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juvenile male (Appellant) appeals the district court s finding that he was a juvenile delinquent. The court determined that Appellant committed three acts of delinquency: conspiracy to commit larceny, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 661 (2006); breaking and entering, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1454(a) (2007), as assimilated by 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 13, 5032 (2006); and larceny, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 661, 5032 (2006). On appeal, Appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the criminal information as barred by the denying Double his Jeopardy motions Clause, for and that judgment of the court acquittal erred because in the evidence was insufficient to establish that he participated in the charged crimes. Appellant district because court the We affirm. first violated Commanding argues that his rights Officer of his against the 424 (4th Cir. Corps in the jeopardy Base had This court reviews United States v. Holbrook, 368 double jeopardy issues de novo. 415, double Marine already taken punitive action against him. F.3d prosecution 2004). The Clause protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997). In analyzing this issue, we follow the framework established in Hudson. 552 U.S. at 99-100. Our review of the record leads us 2 to conclude that the district court properly denied Appellant s motion to dismiss on Double Jeopardy grounds. Appellant next argues that the district court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal because evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt. the He does not contest that the charged crimes occurred, but asserts that the evidence did not establish that he was involved in the offenses. The standard of review in criminal cases where the district court sits in judgment without a jury is well-settled. We review findings on factual issues other than the ultimate issue of guilt using the clearly erroneous test. On the ultimate issue of guilt, we review the district court s finding to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence. United States v. Lockhart, 382 F.3d 447, 451 (4th Cir. 2004). In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the evidence that a Government, reasonable and inquires finder of fact whether there is could accept as adequate and sufficient to establish a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (4th Cir. 1996) (en United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 banc). In this case we find that the district court properly denied Appellant s motions for judgment of acquittal as the evidence was sufficient to establish his guilt. Accordingly we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 3 because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
