United States v. Curtis Russell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 15, 2023
• Docket: 22-4087
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4087 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/15/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4087

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CURTIS RUSSELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior U.S. District Court Judge. (1:21-cr-00237-TSE-TCB- 1)

Submitted: January 13, 2023 Decided: August 15, 2023

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jeffrey D. Zimmerman, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Andrew Ascencio, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas W. Traxler, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4087 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/15/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Following a bench trial, a magistrate judge convicted Curtis Russell of vandalism

in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.31(a)(3) for using a piece of a spark plug to smash a woman’s

car window to then steal her wallet and use her credit cards at a nearby drug store. The

magistrate judge sentenced Russell to six months’ imprisonment, and the district court

upheld the conviction and sentence. Now on appeal, Russell challenges the sufficiency of

the evidence presented against him at trial.

Reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence following a bench trial, “‘we must uphold

a guilty verdict if, taking the view most favorable to the Government, there is substantial

evidence to support the verdict. Substantial evidence means 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.’” United States v. Landersman, 886 F.3d

393, 406 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 184 (4th Cir.

2009)). In conducting this review, we evaluate factfinding for clear error and issues of law

de novo. See United States v. Bursey, 416 F.3d 301, 305–306 (4th Cir. 2005). Having

carefully reviewed the entire record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that

substantial evidence supported the magistrate judge’s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm

Russell’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED