US v. Latanya Garcia, No. 09-4783 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4783 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LATANYA GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00050-IMK-JSK-5) Submitted: October 7, 2010 Decided: February 10, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. De Andra N. Burton, BURTON LAW OFFICE, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Betsy C. Jividen, Acting United States Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Latanya Garcia was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and aiding and abetting the obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1512(c) (2006). four months imprisonment. She was sentenced to twenty- Garcia s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether there convictions. was sufficient evidence to support the Garcia, informed of her right to file a pro se brief, has not done so. We affirm. This court reviews de novo challenges to sufficiency of the evidence. Cir. 2007). substantial United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433, 440 (4th A jury verdict must be sustained if there is evidence, taking Government, to support it. the view most favorable to the Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); see United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 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. Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862. To support a conviction for obstruction of justice, the Government must prove: (1) a pending judicial proceeding; (2) that the defendant had knowledge of the pending proceeding; 2 and (3) that the defendant acted with the intent to influence, obstruct, or impede that proceeding in its due administration of justice. United States v. Grubb, 11 F.3d 426, 437 (4th Cir. 1993). In order to prove a conspiracy to obstruct justice, the Government must show: (1) an agreement between two or more people to obstruct justice; (2) willing participation in the agreement by the defendant; and (3) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. See United States v. Singh, 518 F.3d 236, 248 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 1999). A defendant s participation in a conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial evidence indicating that he or she agreed with one or more others to commit a crime. Burgos, 94 F.3d at 857; see United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 1248, 1255 (4th Cir. evidence 1993) to ( [T]he establish government a may defendant s use circumstantial participation in a conspiracy. ). After reviewing the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial from which the jury could conclude that Garcia was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy to obstruct justice. To government [her]self prove must with show and the crime that of the aiding defendant participated 3 in the and abetting, knowingly criminal the associated venture. United States v. Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Government establishes association by showing that the defendant participated in the criminal intent of the principal, which requires the defendant to be aware of lawlessness of participate in the his principal s acts. every criminal Id. stage of The the intent unlawful the need defendant and not activities; participation at some stage along with knowledge of the result and an intent to effectuate that result is sufficient. States v. Wilson, 135 F.3d 291, 305 (4th Cir. 1998). be proven United by the States v. surrounding Bolden, facts 325 F.3d and 471, United Intent may circumstances. 494 (4th Cir. See 2003) ( [T]he question of one s intent is not measured by a psychic reading of the defendant s mind but by the surrounding facts and circumstances; i.e., circumstantial evidence. ) quotation marks and alterations omitted). establishing support a a defendant s participation conclusion principal s that a unlawful intent defendant [to (internal The same evidence in a conspiracy participated obstruct justice], proving guilt of aiding and abetting as well. in may the thereby Burgos, 94 F.3d at 873. We evidence have reviewed supporting the Garcia s record and conviction conclude for that the conspiracy to obstruct justice is also sufficient to support her conviction 4 for aiding and abetting the obstruction of justice. Accordingly, we affirm Garcia s convictions. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform her client in writing of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
