United States v. Jones , 201 F. App'x 158 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-5072
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANDREW TIMOTHY JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.  William L. Osteen,
    Senior District Judge. (CR-03-55)
    Submitted: September 26, 2006             Decided: September 28, 2006
    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen
    C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Keith M. Cave, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Andrew Timothy Jones appeals from his convictions for
    attempted interference with commerce by robbery of SAB Check
    Cashing (“SAB”), in violation of the Hobbs Act; armed bank robbery
    of First Citizens Bank; and two counts of using a firearm during a
    crime of violence.      On appeal, he contends that the evidence was
    insufficient to support the following elements of his crimes:
    (1) SAB was engaged in interstate commerce and (2) First Citizens
    was federally insured.        Jones also asserts that the court’s jury
    instructions allowed the jury to convict him based on actions
    directed toward non-employees of SAB Check Cashing.               We affirm.
    The     jury’s   verdict    must     be   sustained    if   there   is
    substantial   evidence,     taking     the    view   most    favorable   to    the
    Government, to support it.       Glasser v. United States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    ,
    80 (1942).       At trial, an independent contractor working at SAB
    testified that SAB was engaged in interstate commerce, specifically
    check   cashing,    processing   tax     work    for   the    Internal   Revenue
    Service,   and    utilizing    Western       Union   for    business   purposes.
    Regarding the other robbery, a fifteen-year employee, and former
    branch manager, of First Citizens testified that the bank was
    federally insured on the date of the robbery.                This evidence was
    sufficient to prove the elements in question. See United States v.
    Bailey, 
    990 F.2d 119
    , 125-26 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that Hobbs
    Act should be broadly construed and that jurisdiction prerequisite
    - 2 -
    is   satisfied   by   “proof   of    possibilities,”       even    if    impact   on
    commerce is small); United States v. Gallop, 
    838 F.2d 105
    , 111-12
    (4th Cir. 1988) (finding testimony of bank employee sufficient for
    jury to conclude bank was federally insured).
    Regarding    the    jury    instructions,       the    district   court
    explicitly   instructed       the    jury   that   Jones    was    charged    with
    attempted robbery of SAB.           In addition, witnesses testified that
    Jones attempted to rob SAB by threatening to kill a store employee
    and by threatening to shoot a customer.                    Thus, the evidence
    presented to the jury was consistent with both the allegations in
    the indictment and the court’s instructions.
    We grant Jones’ motion to file a supplemental brief, but
    we find the issues raised therein to be meritless.                  Based on the
    foregoing, we affirm Jones’ 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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-5072

Citation Numbers: 201 F. App'x 158

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Widener, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 9/28/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023