Filed: May 26, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4891 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SCOTT DELL GUSTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00172-BO-1) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Woodward Webb, THE EDMISTE
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4891 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SCOTT DELL GUSTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00172-BO-1) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Woodward Webb, THE EDMISTEN..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4891
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SCOTT DELL GUSTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00172-BO-1)
Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Woodward Webb, THE EDMISTEN & WEBB LAW FIRM, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United
States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scott Dell Gustin appeals from his conviction for
assault on another inmate. On appeal, Gustin argues that the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler,
110
F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). “[A]n appellate court’s
reversal of a conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence
should be confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is
clear.” United States v. Jones,
735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir.
1984). 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). In determining whether
the evidence in the record is substantial, this court views the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and
inquires 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). In
evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does not
review the credibility of the witnesses and assumes 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).
2
At trial, all the eyewitnesses, including the victim,
identified Gustin as the perpetrator. In addition, another
witness testified that Gustin later admitted that he had beaten
the victim. Gustin’s claim of insufficient evidence rests on
inconsistencies as to the length of the beating, the amount of
blood involved, and whether Gustin was able to conceal or remove
evidence, as well as testimony that Gustin did not have any
blood on him. While Gustin asserts that that this “mosaic of
unreliable evidence” was inadequate to support a finding of
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we do not review the
credibility of witnesses, and we assume the jury resolved all
contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government. See
Romer, 148 F.3d at 364. In fact, Gustin pointed out these
inconsistencies to the jury, and we will not overturn the jury’s
decision to credit the multiple identifications of Gustin. We
therefore conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support
the convictions.
We therefore affirm Gustin’s conviction. 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
3