United States v. Anthony B. Mitchell ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-4885
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANTHONY B. MITCHELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CR-98-69)
    Submitted:   April 28, 2000                   Decided:   May 17, 2000
    Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry M. Dash, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
    Fahey, United States Attorney, Damon A. King, Special Assistant
    United States Attorney, Fort Monroe, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Following a jury trial, Anthony B. Mitchell was convicted on
    one count of larceny of personal property, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 2
    , 7 (1994) and 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 661
     (West Supp. 1999).   The
    district court sentenced him to ten months in prison.     Mitchell
    appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his
    conviction.   Evidence presented at trial showed that Mitchell and
    Tremell Watson borrowed a screwdriver and Watson testified that
    they then used the screwdriver to steal a Plymouth Acclaim on base
    at Fort Eustis.   Mitchell’s fingerprint was found on the stolen
    license plate affixed to the Acclaim.   Viewing the evidence in the
    light most favorable to the government, we find that there was
    sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to have found
    Mitchell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.   See Glasser v. United
    States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942). Consequently, we affirm Mitchell’s
    conviction.   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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-4885

Filed Date: 5/17/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021