Opinion
22-4087
08-15-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellant.
ON BRIEF: Jeffrey D. Zimmerman, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Andrew Ascencio, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas W. Traxler, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 13, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior U.S. District Court Judge. (1:21-cr-00237-TSE-TCB-1)
ON BRIEF: Jeffrey D. Zimmerman, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Andrew Ascencio, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas W. Traxler, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:.
Following a bench trial, a magistrate judge convicted Curtis Russell of vandalism in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.31(a)(3) for using a piece of a spark plug to smash a woman's car window to then steal her wallet and use her credit cards at a nearby drug store. The magistrate judge sentenced Russell to six months' imprisonment, and the district court upheld the conviction and sentence. Now on appeal, Russell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial.
Reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence following a bench trial, "'we must uphold a guilty verdict if, taking the view most favorable to the Government, there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Substantial evidence means evidence that a reasonable 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. Landersman, 886 F.3d 393, 406 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir. 2009)). In conducting this review, we evaluate factfinding for clear error and issues of law de novo. See United States v. Bursey, 416 F.3d 301, 305-306 (4th Cir. 2005). Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the parties' arguments, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the magistrate judge's verdict. Accordingly, we affirm Russell's conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.