US v. Robin Perry, No. 11-4485 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4485 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBIN SNIPES PERRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00032-WO-1) Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 3, 2012 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. Scott Holmes, BROCK, PAYNE & MEECE, PA, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, Acting United States Attorney, Frank J. Chut, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robin Snipes Perry appeals her jury conviction on four counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. ยง 1341 (West 2000 & Supp. 2011), based on her alleged scheme to defraud her employer, Becton, Dickinson & Company ( BDC ). On appeal, Perry argues that the district court erred in denying her Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for acquittal, abused its discretion in denying her pretrial motion in limine, and abused its discretion in admitting a prior consistent statement. Finding no error, we affirm. Perry finds fault with the district court s denial of her motion statement. in limine and admission a prior consistent Perry s motion in limine sought to exclude evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). applies of only to evidence of extrinsic Rule 404(b), however, acts, not evidence those acts that are intrinsic to the charged offenses. of United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302, 326 (4th Cir. 2009). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the evidence of Perry s uncharged conduct was intrinsic to the charged offenses or in denying the motion in limine. See United States v. Hornsby, 666 F.3d 296, 309 (4th Cir. 2012) (providing standard of review). Turning to the remaining evidentiary issue, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 2 admitting a witness prior consistent statement to rebut the implication on cross-examination that he fabricated his trial testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B); United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review). Finally, Perry challenges the denial of her motion for acquittal. We review de novo the district court s denial of a Rule 29 motion. United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2006). A jury verdict must be upheld if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to support it. evidence that a reasonable Id. [S]ubstantial evidence is finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. omitted). drawing We consider both circumstantial and direct evidence, all reasonable government s favor. (4th Cir. 2008). review the Id. (internal quotation marks inferences from such evidence in the United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 However, [w]e may not weigh the evidence or credibility of the witnesses functions are reserved for the jury. [because] [t]hose United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal citation omitted). Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that Perry committed mail fraud. 3 See United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 666 (4th Cir. 2001) (providing elements of mail fraud); see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25 (1999) (stating that scheme to defraud must involve material misrepresentation). Thus, the district court did not err in denying the Rule 29 motion. 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 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.
