US v. Ibrahima Sarr, No. 10-4248 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. IBRAHIMA SARR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00119-MSD-DEM-1) Submitted: October 6, 2010 Decided: November 8, 2010 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brett D. Lucas, GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ibrahima Sarr was convicted after a trial of one count of false impersonation of United States violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 911 (2006). (1) the district court abused its citizenship, in On appeal, Sarr claims discretion in denying his motion for a continuance; (2) the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; and insufficient to support the conviction. (3) the evidence was Finding no error, we affirm. This court reviews the district court s denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 738-39 (4th Cir. 2006). [E]ven if such an abuse is found, the defendant must show that the error specifically prejudiced her case in order to prevail. 739 (internal quotation marks omitted). Id. at A trial court abuses its discretion only when its denial of a motion for continuance is an unreasoning and arbitrary insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay. quotation marks omitted). Id. (internal There being no justifiable request for delay, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. This court reviews de novo a district court s denial of a motion, made pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for judgment 2 of acquittal. United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006). We find no error in the court s decision denying Sarr s motion for judgment of acquittal. A substantial jury s verdict evidence, Government, to support it. 60, 80 (1942). reasonable be the taking must sustained view most if there favorable to is the Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. Substantial evidence is that evidence which a finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 390 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). This court does not review the credibility of witnesses and assumes the factfinder resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government. 313 (4th Cir. 2002). United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, We conclude there was substantial evidence supporting the jury s verdict. Accordingly, We dispense with oral we affirm argument the conviction because the and facts sentence. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
