Filed: Nov. 03, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5176 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN ANTHONY TURRENTINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00076-GBL-1) Submitted: October 20, 2010 Decided: November 3, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Jenkins,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5176 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN ANTHONY TURRENTINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00076-GBL-1) Submitted: October 20, 2010 Decided: November 3, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Jenkins, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5176
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN ANTHONY TURRENTINE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00076-GBL-1)
Submitted: October 20, 2010 Decided: November 3, 2010
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, G. Zachary Terwilliger, Jonathan L. Fahey, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Turrentine challenges his conviction for using
a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2006). Turrentine contests the trial
court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29
motion for acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
This court reviews de novo the denial of a Rule 29
motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Alerre, 430
F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). When a Rule 29 motion was based
on a claim of insufficient evidence, the jury’s verdict must be
sustained “if there is substantial evidence, taking the view
most favorable to the government, to support it.” United States
v. Abu Ali,
528 F.3d 210, 244 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129
S. Ct. 1312 (2009). This court “ha[s] defined ‘substantial
evidence’ as ‘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.’”
Alerre, 430 F.3d
at 693 (quoting United States v. Burgos,
94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th
Cir. 1996)).
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we
“must consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and
allow the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences
from the facts proven to those sought to be established.”
2
United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
Finally, we may not weigh the evidence or review the credibility
of the witnesses. United States v. Allen,
491 F.3d 178, 185
(4th Cir. 2007). If the evidence “supports different,
reasonable interpretations, the jury decides which
interpretation to believe.” United States v. Murphy,
35 F.3d
143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). Thus, a defendant challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. United States
v. Beidler,
110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).
To prove a violation of § 924(c)(1), the government
must demonstrate either that the defendant “use[d] or carrie[d]
a firearm” “during and in relation to any crime of violence,” or
that the defendant “possesse[d] a firearm” “in furtherance of
any such crime.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); United States v.
Stephens, 482 F.3d 669, 673 (4th Cir. 2007). “A defendant may
be convicted of a § 924(c) charge on the basis of a
coconspirator’s use of a gun if the use was in furtherance of
the conspiracy and was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.”
United States v. Wilson,
135 F.3d 291, 305 (4th Cir. 1998)
(citing United States v. Chorman,
910 F.2d 102, 110-11 (4th Cir.
1990)).
We have reviewed the evidence in this case and
conclude that the Government produced sufficient evidence to
sustain the conviction. At trial, the Government presented
3
evidence from Turrentine’s coconspirators, who were eyewitnesses
to both the planning and the execution of the robbery. The
witnesses’ testimony established that not only was his
coconspirator’s use of a firearm during the course of the
robbery reasonably foreseeable to Turrentine, it was
specifically planned by the group.
Turrentine urges us to ignore the testimony supporting
his conviction on the grounds that it was “self-serving” and
motivated by the witnesses’ hope for shorter sentences.
Turrentine suggests this court should instead rely on the
testimony of the only witness who denied that the robbery plan
included the use of any weapons and denied seeing any firearms
on the morning of the robbery.
Turrentine’s argument ignores the standard of review
we are bound to apply. This court does not “weigh the evidence
or review the credibility of the witnesses” on appeal. United
States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997) Rather,
“[t]hose functions are reserved for the jury.”
Id. The jury in
this case chose which set of competing testimony to believe, and
we will not disturb that credibility determination on appeal.
See
Murphy, 35 F.3d at 148 (“The jury, not the reviewing court,
weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves any
conflicts in the evidence presented.”).
4
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district
court’s judgment. 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
