Filed: Nov. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4312 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LETTY MELLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:07-cr-00003-gec-2) Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E. Wray, Roanoke, Virginia, f
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4312 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LETTY MELLOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:07-cr-00003-gec-2) Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E. Wray, Roanoke, Virginia, fo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4312
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LETTY MELLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (7:07-cr-00003-gec-2)
Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas E. Wray, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C.
Dudley, United States Attorney, Ashley B. Neese, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Letty Mellor was convicted on
seven counts pertaining to a conspiracy to traffic in, use,
produce and possess unauthorized and counterfeit access devices. ∗
The district court sentenced her to a total of sixty-five months
in prison. Mellor appeals, arguing that the largely
circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support her
convictions. Finding her claim to be without merit, we affirm.
A jury’s verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is
substantial evidence in the record to support it. Glasser v.
United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Perry,
560 F.3d 246, 254 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___,
∗
Specifically, the jury convicted Mellor of conspiracy to
use, produce, and possess and traffic in unauthorized and
counterfeit access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
(2006); trafficking in, producing, and using counterfeit access
devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(1) & 2 (2006);
possessing fifteen or more counterfeit or unauthorized access
devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) & 2 (2006);
trafficking in, having control or custody of, and possessing “a
skimming device designed to capture credit card numbers and
related data as a credit card is swiped through the device,” in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(4) & 2 (2006); unlawful
possession of one or more credit card numbers during and in
relation to the trafficking in, producing, and using counterfeit
access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) & 2
(2006); unlawful transfer and use of one or more credit card
numbers during and in relation to the possession of fifteen or
more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) & 2; and unlawful use of one or more
credit card numbers during and in relation to the possession of
access device-making equipment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
1028A(a)(1) & 2.
2
2009 WL 1788118 (Oct. 5, 2009). In determining whether the
evidence in the record is substantial, we view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the Government, and inquire whether
there is 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.
Burgos,
94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In
evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the
credibility of the witnesses and assume that the jury resolved
all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government.
United States v. Romer,
148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998).
The evidence presented at trial showed that, while
Mellor was working as a server at the Texas Steakhouse and
Saloon, forty-six of her customers had their credit or debit
card numbers stolen. Neither before Mellor began her employment
in May 2006, nor after she left in August 2006, did the
restaurant experience similar problems with customers’ credit or
debit card numbers being stolen. When Mellor left the Texas
Steakhouse, she took a job at Sears in the jewelry department.
In the few weeks that she worked there, four chargeback
transactions, instances where a credit card customer informs the
credit card company that he or she did not make a purchase
charged to his or her account, were completed under Mellor’s
associate number.
3
Also in 2006, Mellor’s husband, Landy Diaz, and Mario
Rojas, the owner of a small jewelry store, arranged for Julio
Mendez, a waiter at the Rancho Viejo restaurant, to steal credit
and debit card numbers from his customers using a skimmer, a
device used to retrieve and store numbers from the magnetic
strip on the back of a credit or debit card. Mendez ultimately
used the device to obtain fifty to sixty credit or debit card
numbers from his customers.
Although no one witnessed Mellor using or possessing a
skimmer at the Texas Steakhouse, the pockets in the apron she
wore as part of her uniform were large enough to conceal such a
device. At least one account fraudulently used at Sears during
transactions for which Mellor was the cashier belonged to a
victim who previously used her card at the Rancho Viejo where
Julio Mendez had been her server. Two other fraudulent
transactions at Sears for which Mellor was the cashier bore the
signature “Mario Rojas.”
Mellor also used a counterfeit card embossed with her
father-in-law’s name, but encoded with a number belonging to a
customer at the Rancho Viejo who had been served by Mendez.
Moreover, a laptop found in the Mellor-Diaz home contained
numerous articles pertaining to the use of credit card
information. The only username in the computer was “Letty
Mellor.” Finally, Mellor and Diaz moved from Virginia to
4
Florida the same day a press release announced that they were
suspects.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government,
we find that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s
verdict on all counts. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
5