Filed: Mar. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-4530 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREY NORRELL MCLAUGHLIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00454-NCT-1) Submitted: March 13, 2019 Decided: March 28, 2019 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-4530 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREY NORRELL MCLAUGHLIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00454-NCT-1) Submitted: March 13, 2019 Decided: March 28, 2019 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-4530
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDREY NORRELL MCLAUGHLIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00454-NCT-1)
Submitted: March 13, 2019 Decided: March 28, 2019
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States
Attorney, Whitney N. Shaffer, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrey Norrell McLaughlin appeals the denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion
for a judgment of acquittal and his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). On appeal, McLaughlin challenges
only the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
“We review de novo a district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion.” United States
v. Burfoot,
899 F.3d 326, 334 (4th Cir. 2018). “We must sustain a guilty verdict if,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the verdict is
supported by substantial evidence.”
Id. “Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable
finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The undisputed evidence established that, during an attempted traffic stop,
McLaughlin fled from police on foot. While one officer ran after him, someone fired
several shots from a handgun. McLaughlin denied firing a gun and instead insisted that,
as he ran from police, a person in a nearby crowd started shooting. However, the
passenger in McLaughlin’s car testified that McLaughlin brandished a firearm
immediately before exiting the vehicle. In addition, McLaughlin’s girlfriend stated that
McLaughlin admitted firing his gun that night, and McLaughlin’s brother testified that
McLaughlin confessed to shooting his gun to evade police.
Given that three different witnesses placed a gun in McLaughlin’s hands on the
night of the shooting, we conclude that the Government produced sufficient evidence to
2
sustain the jury’s guilty verdict. While McLaughlin urges us to accept his version of the
events, “[w]e . . . must assume the jury resolved all contradictions in testimony in the
government’s favor.”
Id. Thus, we must infer that the jury discredited McLaughlin’s
account—a matter he cannot relitigate on appeal. Similarly, we reject McLaughlin’s
suggestion that, because his brother and girlfriend cooperated with the Government in the
hope of receiving favorable treatment on pending or potential criminal charges, their
testimony was necessarily incredible. See United States v. Zelaya,
908 F.3d 920, 926
(4th Cir. 2018) (rejecting credibility challenge based on witnesses’ cooperation), cert.
denied, __ S. Ct. __, No. 18-6948,
2019 WL 113515 (U.S. Jan. 7, 2019); see also United
States v. Palin,
874 F.3d 418, 424 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating that credibility determinations
are sole province of jury), cert. denied,
138 S. Ct. 1451 (2018), and cert. denied, 138 S.
Ct. 1605 (2018).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
3