United States v. Manuel , 33 F. App'x 121 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-4882
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DAVID W. MANUEL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-01-380-A)
    Submitted:   April 3, 2002                 Decided:   April 29, 2002
    Before WILKINS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Alan H. Yamamoto, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.
    McNulty, United States Attorney, Jill Ptacek, Special Assistant
    United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    David    W.   Manuel   appeals   his   conviction   and   seven-month
    sentence for attempting to interfere with the administration of
    internal revenue laws in violation of 
    26 U.S.C. § 7212
    (a) (1994).
    Manuel contends the evidence was insufficient to support his
    conviction.    We affirm.
    In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we must
    sustain the verdict if the record contains “substantial evidence,
    taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.”
    Glasser v. United States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942).          Applying this
    standard, we give due regard to the fact finder’s prerogative to
    resolve questions of credibility. United States v. Burgos, 
    94 F.3d 849
    , 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996).     We conclude the Government presented
    sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find Manuel
    guilty of the charges listed in the indictment beyond a reasonable
    doubt.
    Accordingly, we affirm Manuel’s conviction 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-4882

Citation Numbers: 33 F. App'x 121

Judges: Gregory, King, Per Curiam, Wilkins

Filed Date: 4/29/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023