United States v. Richard A. Evans

90 F.3d 591, 319 U.S. App. D.C. 368, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 41750
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJune 7, 1996
Docket95-3139
StatusUnpublished

This text of 90 F.3d 591 (United States v. Richard A. Evans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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. Richard A. Evans, 90 F.3d 591, 319 U.S. App. D.C. 368, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 41750 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Opinion

90 F.3d 591

319 U.S.App.D.C. 368

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Richard A. EVANS, Appellant.

Nos. 94-3023, 95-3139.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 7, 1996.

Before: WILLIAMS, HENDERSON, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that appellant's convictions on counts II and IV be affirmed. Because there was sufficient evidence to support those convictions, appellant was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to renew the motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence. As a result, counsel was not ineffective. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Moreover, in light of the evidence against Evans, our refusal to consider his sufficiency claim would not result in a "manifest miscarriage of justice." United States v. Sherod, 960 F.2d 1075, 1077, 1078-79 (D.C.Cir.) (court may review a sufficiency claim waived by failure to renew motion for judgment of acquittal only if manifest miscarriage of justice would otherwise result), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 980 (1992). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the conviction on count I be vacated. See United States v. Edmonds, 69 F.3d 1172 (D.C.Cir.1995) (per curiam).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 41.

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

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. Christopher J. Sherod
960 F.2d 1075 (D.C. Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Rodger Edmonds
69 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 F.3d 591, 319 U.S. App. D.C. 368, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 41750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-a-evans-cadc-1996.