US v. Kenishca Walizada, No. 10-5181 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5181 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KENISHCA WALIZADA, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00148-CMH-1) Submitted: June 29, 2011 Decided: July 7, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cary S. Greenberg, Caroline E. Costle, GREENBERGCOSTLE, McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, States Attorney, William H. Jones, II, Special Assistant States Attorney, Gordon D. Kromberg, Assistant United Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. P.C., United United States Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenishca structuring Walizada financial appeals his transactions jury to conviction evade reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a) (2006). court sentenced Walizada to two years probation. for The We affirm. Walizada argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the jury s attempted to structure language of the finding structured a financial Code of transaction that is he had structured transaction Federal and Regulations ambiguous. This that or the defining a reviews a Court sufficiency of the evidence challenge by determining whether, viewing the evidence Government, the determination States v. of Young, in trial light evidence guilty 609 the beyond F.3d most could a 348, favorable support (4th the any rational doubt. reasonable 355 to United Cir. 2010). The evidence adduced at trial was clearly sufficient to support the jury s verdict. Further, we reject Walizada s contention that the language in the applicable regulations is ambiguous. We sentence. legal before therefore Walizada s conviction and We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the affirm court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.