United States v. Peele , 86 F. App'x 652 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4497
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VICKIE JONES PEELE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-02-199)
Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 10, 2004
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph M. Wilson, Jr., BROWNE, FLEBOTTE, WILSON & HORN, P.L.L.C.,
Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United
States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Vickie Jones Peele appeals her jury convictions of
conspiring to defraud the United States by obtaining payments of
false claims for tax refunds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286(2000); and four counts of making fraudulent claims for tax refunds
and aiding and abetting another in those offenses in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 287 (2000). After the close of the Government’s
case in chief, the district court denied Peele’s motion for
acquittal for lack of sufficient evidence on all counts save one
§ 287 count. On appeal, Peele asserts the evidence was
insufficient to support any of her convictions and that certain
remarks by the prosecutor in closing argument unduly prejudiced her
defense. We affirm.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence and the
denial of a motion for acquittal, a guilty verdict “must be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the government, to support the finding of guilt.”
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). We find the
evidence, when viewed in its entirety and in the light most
favorable to the Government, supports Peele’s convictions.
Likewise, we find the prosecutor’s comments in closing did not
prejudice Peele’s defense or violate her right to due process under
- 2 -
the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175,
186 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 963 (2002).
Accordingly, we affirm Peele’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
*
Peele’s criminal judgment order contains several clerical
errors. Most notably, Count One is described as a conspiracy to
distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing
methamphetamine, rather than a conspiracy to defraud the United
States by obtaining payments of false claims for tax refunds. Also
the term of imprisonment for Count One is omitted, and the term of
supervised release for Count Four is omitted. Peele has not
asserted these errors on appeal and they do not affect our
disposition of the issues she has asserted. The district court may
correct such clerical errors in the criminal judgment order at any
time under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
- 3 -