United States v. Michael Florig

628 F. App'x 203
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 14, 2016
Docket15-4472
StatusUnpublished

This text of 628 F. App'x 203 (United States v. Michael Florig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Michael Florig, 628 F. App'x 203 (4th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In a bench trial before a magistrate judge, Michael Florig was convicted of theft of government property. The district court affirmed his conviction. On appeal, Florig argues that there was insufficient evidence that the property found in his possession belonged to the Government because the only evidence on this issue was circumstantial.

“We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. If, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find there is substantial evidence to support the conviction, we will affirm the jury verdict.” United States v. McDonnell, 792 F.3d 478, 515 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), petition for cert. filed, — U.S.L.W. - (U.S. Oct. 15, 2015) (No. 15-474). Significantly, “circumstantial evidence is treated no differently than direct evidence, and may be sufficient to support a guilty verdict even though it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.” United States v. Gray, 137 F.3d 765, 772 (4th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the circumstantial evidence that the property found in Florig’s car belonged to the commissary where he worked, as aptly summarized in the district court’s opinion, was overwhelming. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Florig’s conviction.

We affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. David Furtado Gray
137 F.3d 765 (Fourth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Robert McDonnell
792 F.3d 478 (Fourth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
628 F. App'x 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-florig-ca4-2016.