United States v. Popravka , 325 F. App'x 235 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EVGENIA A. POPRAVKA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:07-cr-00219-JBF-FBS-3)
Submitted: April 8, 2009 Decided: April 27, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven A. Morley, MORLEY, SURIN & GRIFFIN, P.C., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United
States Attorney, Stephen W. Haynie, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Evgenia Popravka was found guilty, following a jury
trial, of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and fraudulently entering into a
marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws of the
United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c) (2006). The
district court sentenced her to time served, which was
approximately seven months of imprisonment, followed by two
years of supervised release. The court also imposed a $200
special assessment and $100,000 in restitution to the U.S. Navy.
Popravka now appeals.
Popravka’s sole claim on appeal is that there was
insufficient evidence presented at trial for the jury to
conclude that she entered into a marriage for the “purpose of
evading any provision of the immigration laws.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1325(c). 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
2
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) (en
banc). 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).
“To convict an alien of marriage fraud [under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1325(c)], the Government must prove: (1) the alien knowingly
entered into a marriage; (2) the marriage was entered into for
the purpose of evading a provision of the immigration laws; and
(3) the alien knew or had reason to know of the immigration
laws.” United States v. Islam, 418 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir.
2005); see also United States v. Chowdhury, 169 F.3d 402, 405-06
(6th Cir. 1999). After reviewing the record in the light most
favorable to the Government, we conclude there was more than
sufficient evidence in this case for a reasonable finder of fact
to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Popravka engaged in
marriage fraud in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c).
3
Accordingly, we affirm Popravka’s convictions 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
4