Michael Draven v. US, No. 09-5122 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5122 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ANTHONY DRAVEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00016-RBS-TEM-1) Submitted: February 23, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Ellenson, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES ELLENSON, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Lisa R. McKeel, Brian J. Samuels, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: After a jury trial, Michael Anthony Draven was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit murder for hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) (2006), carjacking and aiding and abetting such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119, 2 (2006) and one count of murder with a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and aiding and abetting such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j), 2 (2006). On appeal, Draven asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Concluding that substantial evidence supports the convictions, we affirm. Draven was involved in an affair with Catherina Voss while she was married to Cory Voss, the victim. Catherina wanted Cory dead in order to be free of the marriage and for financial gain. Draven also expressed a desire to have Cory murdered and went about discussing possible methods and locating and paying a hitman. On the night of the murder, Draven was in telephone contact with the hitman and drove to an area close to where the Catherina s benefit. murder occurred. financial reward After the received murder, by virtue he of shared a in death Subsequently, he discussed possible alibis with the hitman and lied to law enforcement about his relationship to Catherina and the hitman and his whereabouts the night of the murder. 2 A evidence defendant to support challenging his the conviction sufficiency bears a heavy of the burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). A jury s verdict must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); see United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2006). evidence that a reasonable finder Substantial evidence is of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. F.3d 681, omitted). 693 (4th Cir. United States v. Alerre, 430 2005) (internal quotation marks The court considers both circumstantial and direct evidence, drawing all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the government s favor. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). In resolving issues of substantial evidence, this court does not reweigh the evidence or reassess the factfinder s determination of witness credibility, see United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008), and can reverse a conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the prosecution s failure is clear. United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 The Government s theory of the case was that Draven was an abetted active in the participant carjacking, in the conspiracy robbery and and murder. aided and Because a conspiracy is by nature clandestine and covert, there rarely is direct evidence of such an agreement . . . [C]onspiracy is usually proven by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Yearwood, 518 F.3d 220, 225 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We conclude there was more than substantial evidence to show that Draven participated as a coconspirator in a murder-for-hire scheme to have Cory Voss murdered. We also conclude that Draven was guilty as an aider and abetter in the murder of Cory Voss. A defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting if he has knowingly associated himself with and participated in the criminal venture. United States v. Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation person marks liable omitted). for The substantive Pinkerton * offenses doctrine committed makes by a a co- conspirator when their commission is reasonably foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy. F.3d 135, (2010). * 142-43 The (4th evidence Cir.), United States v. Ashley, 606 cert. clearly denied, showed that 131 the S. Ct. substantive Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647 (1946). 4 3245 offenses committed as a result of the conspiracy were reasonably foreseeable to Draven. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.
