US v. Jansen Yeboah, No. 12-4948 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4948 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JANSEN YEBOAH, a/k/a Koby, a/k/a Coby, a/k/a Kobby, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:11-cr-00031-JLK-1) Submitted: June 14, 2013 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 25, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elmer R. Woodard, III, ELMER WOODARD ATTORNEY AT LAW, PC, Blairs, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Ashley B. Neese, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth G. Wright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A federal grand jury indicted Jansen Yeboah for his membership and participation in an alleged credit card fraud conspiracy that operated in the Western District of Virginia during June and July 2011. The grand jury generally charged that members of the alleged conspiracy, including Yeboah, obtained stolen credit card numbers from numerous victims, re-encoded the stolen credit card numbers onto depleted gift cards and other cards that stolen have magnetic numbers to strips, purchase and used various the items. cards The bearing grand jury specifically charged Yeboah with one count of conspiring with others to commit access device fraud (18 U.S.C. § 371), six substantive counts of access device fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029), and six substantive counts of aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A). At the conclusion of a four-day trial, the petit jury convicted Yeboah on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to a 124-month imprisonment term. Yeboah now argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions. We affirm. A faces defendant a heavy challenging burden, and the we sufficiency will reverse of a the evidence conviction on insufficiency grounds only in those rare cases of clear failure by the prosecution. United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d 197, 212 (4th Cir. 2013). In considering 2 such a claim, we view the evidence in the light mofavorable to the government to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and we accord the government all reasonable inferences from the facts shown to those sought to be established. Id. Moreover, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses, and we assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in the government s favor. Id. In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, Yeboah argues that the government failed to prove that he knew or should have known that he was using fraudulent cards. Applying the foregoing standard of review, we find no merit government to this presented argument. ample direct Stated and succinctly, circumstantial the evidence for the jury reasonably to conclude (among other things) that the conspiracy involved at least nine people, including Yeboah, who went to Danville, Virginia, for the purpose of committing credit/debit card fraud; Yeboah knew that cards were being reencoded and that they had stolen numbers on them; and Yeboah either used, or credit/debit card substantive counts. aided numbers and abetted for Therefore, each the sufficient to support the verdicts. 3 the use occasion evidence of, charged is stolen in the unquestionably Based on the foregoing, we affirm Yeboah s convictions. We dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this 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.
