Opinion
22-4455
05-31-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEJANDRO GARLYNN WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jimmie I. Bellamy, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: April 26, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00547-FL-2)
ON BRIEF:
Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jimmie I. Bellamy, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted Alejandro Williams on one count of conspiracy to use unauthorized access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2), ten counts of use of unauthorized access devices and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) and ten counts of aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). The district court denied Williams' Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court's denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal. United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 913. In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we "construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, assuming its credibility, and drawing all favorable inferences from it, and will sustain the jury verdict if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 571 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation and emphasis omitted). "Appellate reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence . . . will be confined to cases where the prosecution's failure is clear." Green, 599 F.3d at 367 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). "A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction bears a heavy burden." United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We have reviewed the record of the proceedings below in light of Williams' arguments on appeal and conclude that sufficient evidence clearly supports the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we affirm his convictions and sentence. 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.