United States v. Coltrane, 4th Cir. (2009)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Coltrane, 4th Cir. (2009)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5133
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLTON RAMA COLTRANE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam OGrady, District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00214-LO-1)
Submitted:
July 8, 2009
Decided:
July 16, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan H. Yamamoto, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J.
Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Patricia T. Giles,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlton Rama Coltrane appeals his conviction by a jury
of three charges: conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (2006); armed bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 2, 2113(a), (d) (2006); and use of a
firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
924(c)(1)(A) (2006).
On
appeal,
Coltrane
argues
that
the
district
court
erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the
three charges because the evidence was insufficient to sustain
the jurys verdict.
Coltrane does not dispute that an armed
bank robbery took place in Alexandria, Virginia, on December 29,
2007; he simply argues that he did not participate with codefendant Amobi Agu.
This court reviews de novo a district
courts denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal.
States
v.
Alerre,
430
F.3d
681,
693
(4th
Cir.
United
2005).
In
conducting such a review, the court is obliged to sustain a
guilty
verdict
favorable
to
if,
the
viewing
the
prosecution,
substantial evidence.
evidence
the
in
verdict
the
is
light
supported
most
by
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862
(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citing Glasser v. United States, 315
U.S.
60,
80
(1942)).
This
court
has
defined
substantial
evidence as evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could
accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a
2
defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
at 693 (quoting Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862).
Alerre, 430 F.3d
This court must
consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow
the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the
facts
proven
to
those
sought
to
be
established.
United
States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do
not assess the credibility of the witnesses and assume that the
jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of
the Government.
United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 519 (2008).
We can reverse a
conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the prosecutions
failure is clear.
United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394
(4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
In order to establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. 371,
the Government must prove there was an agreement between two or
more people to commit a crime and an overt act in furtherance of
the conspiracy.
Cir. 1997).
United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 922 (4th
Coltranes co-defendant, Agu, testified that the
pair planned, prepared and executed the robbery, with Coltrane
serving
as
the
lookout
during
the
crime.
At
trial,
two
eyewitnesses testified about Coltranes appearance at the bank
and a DNA expert testified that a hair sample consistent with
3
Coltranes was found on a discarded sweatshirt that matched the
sweatshirt worn by Agus accomplice.
The evidence at trial thus
was substantial.
To
prove:
prove
armed
bank
robbery,
the
government
must
(1) the defendant took money belonging to a bank, (2) by
using force, violence or intimidation, (3) the banks deposits
were federally insured, and (4) in committing the offense, the
defendant
put
persons
life
in
jeopardy
by
the
use
of
See United States v. Davis, 437 F.3d 989, 993
dangerous weapon.
(10th Cir. 2006).
With respect to this charge, Coltrane does
not challenge the elements of the crime; rather, he claims the
evidence is insufficient to prove his participation.
But, for
the reasons stated above, we find his arguments unavailing.
The third charge, use of a firearm during a crime of
violence, requires the government to prove that the defendant
used a firearm, and the defendant did so during and in relation
to a crime of violence.
was
sufficient
to
Coltrane concedes that if the evidence
prove
armed
bank
robbery
it
was
also
sufficient to prove this charge.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
