United States v. Garcia , 413 F. App'x 585 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4783
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LATANYA GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00050-IMK-JSK-5)
Submitted: October 7, 2010 Decided: February 10, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
De’Andra N. Burton, BURTON LAW OFFICE, Morgantown, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Betsy C. Jividen, Acting United States
Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Latanya Garcia was convicted by a jury of conspiracy
to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and
aiding and abetting the obstruction of justice in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1512(c) (2006). She was sentenced to twenty-
four months’ imprisonment. Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether there was sufficient evidence to support the
convictions. Garcia, informed of her right to file a pro se
brief, has not done so. We affirm.
This court reviews de novo challenges to sufficiency
of the evidence. United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433, 440 (4th
Cir. 2007). A jury 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); see United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862
(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 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.” Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862.
To support a conviction for obstruction of justice,
the Government must prove: (1) a pending judicial proceeding;
(2) that the defendant had knowledge of the pending proceeding;
2
and (3) that the defendant acted “with the intent to influence,
obstruct, or impede that proceeding in its due administration of
justice.” United States v. Grubb, 11 F.3d 426, 437 (4th Cir.
1993).
In order to prove a conspiracy to obstruct justice,
the Government must show: (1) an agreement between two or more
people to obstruct justice; (2) willing participation in the
agreement by the defendant; and (3) an overt act in furtherance
of the agreement. See United States v. Singh, 518 F.3d 236, 248
(4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 234
(4th Cir. 1999). A defendant’s participation in a conspiracy
may be shown by circumstantial evidence indicating that he or
she agreed with one or more others to commit a crime. Burgos,
94 F.3d at 857; see United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 1248, 1255
(4th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he government may use circumstantial
evidence to establish a defendant’s participation in a
conspiracy.”).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that there was
sufficient evidence presented at trial from which the jury could
conclude that Garcia was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of
conspiracy to obstruct justice.
“To prove the crime of aiding and abetting, the
government must show that the defendant knowingly associated
[her]self with and participated in the criminal venture.”
3
United States v. Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The Government establishes
association by showing that the defendant participated in the
criminal intent of the principal, which requires the defendant
to be aware of the principal’s criminal intent and the
lawlessness of his acts. Id. The defendant need not
participate in every stage of the unlawful activities;
participation at some stage along with knowledge of the result
and an intent to effectuate that result is sufficient. United
States v. Wilson, 135 F.3d 291, 305 (4th Cir. 1998). Intent may
be proven by the surrounding facts and circumstances. See
United States v. Bolden, 325 F.3d 471, 494 (4th Cir. 2003)
(“[T]he question of one’s intent is not measured by a psychic
reading of the defendant’s mind but by the surrounding facts and
circumstances; i.e., circumstantial evidence.”) (internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted). “The same evidence
establishing a defendant’s participation in a conspiracy may
support a conclusion that a defendant participated in the
principal’s unlawful intent [to obstruct justice], thereby
proving guilt of aiding and abetting as well.” Burgos, 94 F.3d
at 873.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
evidence supporting Garcia’s conviction for conspiracy to
obstruct justice is also sufficient to support her conviction
4
for aiding and abetting the obstruction of justice.
Accordingly, we affirm Garcia’s convictions.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
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 her client in writing of
her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client 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 was served on the client.
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
5