United States v. Berry , 432 F. App'x 270 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4828
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALAN L. BERRY, a/k/a Alan Lenneau Berry,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00068-RBH-1)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alan L. Berry was convicted by a jury of theft of
Government property and numerous counts of mail fraud. The
evidence at trial showed that Berry devised a scheme to falsely
claim to be unable to work in order to collect disability
benefits. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court erred in denying Berry’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 29
motion for judgment of acquittal. Although informed of his
right to do so, Berry has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that a district court must enter a judgment of
acquittal where the evidence is insufficient to sustain a
conviction. Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). We review a district
court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal de
novo. United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir.
2006). “In conducting such review, we must uphold a jury
verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light
most favorable to the Government, to support it.” Id.Substantial evidence 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.”
2
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc). Berry “must carry an imposing burden to successfully
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.” United States v.
Martin, 523 F.3d 281, 288 (4th Cir. 2008).
Berry contends that the district court erred in
denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. In district
court, Berry asserted that, because the actual Hartford
Insurance Company policy was not entered into evidence, judgment
of acquittal should have been granted on the charges involving
Hartford Insurance. However, several documents quoting the
relevant policy definitions were submitted into evidence, and a
witness testified that the language in the documents was
directly from the policy. After a thorough review of the
record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to
support the jury’s verdict.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Berry, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Berry requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
3
was served on Berry. 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