US v. Marion Carter, Jr., No. 13-4842 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4842 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARION W. CARTER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:13-cr-00004-JRS-1) Submitted: May 30, 2014 Decided: June 5, 2014 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Peter S. Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: After a jury trial, Marion convicted of two counts of robbery violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) W. Carter, affecting (2012), Jr., was commerce, two in counts of possessing and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2012), one count of attempted robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). On appeal, Carter challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting all but the felon in possession of ammunition conviction. We affirm. The denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo. United States v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917, 921 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 2014 WL 1714559 (May 27, 2014). We review the sufficiency of the evidence by determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record, when viewed in the light most favorable conviction. Id. to the Substantial Government, to evidence evidence is support the that a reasonable factfinder could accept as adequate and sufficient to support the finding that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011). We assume that the factfinder resolved all contradictions the in testimony in favor of the Government. United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008). 2 We must determine whether any reasonable trier of fact could have doubt. found the essential elements beyond a reasonable United States v. Madrigal-Valadez, 561 F.3d 370, 374 (4th Cir. 2009). The focus for the court is on the complete picture created by the evidence. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). circumstantial and direct evidence, drawing We consider both all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the Government s favor. States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). United [A]s a general proposition, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a guilty verdict even though it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008) (conspiracy to commit robbery) (alteration and quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Robinson, 177 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 1999) (robbery conviction supported by circumstantial evidence); United States v. Taylor, 605 F.2d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir. 1979) (same). If the evidence supports different interpretations, the jury decides which interpretation to believe. Burgos, 94 F.3d at on 862. We can reverse a conviction based insufficient evidence 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 A Hobbs Act violation requires proof of two elements: (1) the underlying robbery or extortion crime, and (2) an effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Williams, 342 F.3d 350, 353 (4th Cir. 2003). The Hobbs Act defines robbery as the unlawful person . taking . . or by obtaining means of of personal actual or property threatened from the force, or violence, or fear of injury . . . to his person or property . . . at the time of the taking or obtaining. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1). Brandishing requires the a showing firearm of two under 18 elements: U.S.C. (1) § 924(c)(1) the defendant possessed and brandished a firearm, and (2) the defendant did so during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense or crime of violence. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d at 922; United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997). After viewing the evidence as a whole, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury s finding that Carter was the person responsible for the two robberies and the attempted robbery, and that he brandished a firearm during the two robberies. The jury was entitled to reject his alibi defense for one of the robberies and his claim that there was another suspect for the attempted robbery. It is the jury s function to weigh the credibility of witnesses and to resolve conflicts in the evidence. United States v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 4 358, 387 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1278 (2013). The jury s determinations regarding conflicting evidence not substantial evidence, inferences. United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL will even be if witness credibility disturbed we were if to supported draw and by contrary 1623072, at *6 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.