United States v. Vyacheslav Rizkhov

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 1, 2024
• Docket: 22-4459
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4459 Doc: 20 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4459

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VYACHESLAV FYODOROVITCH RIZKHOV,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:21-cr-00128-NCT-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WYNN, THACKER, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Charles L. White, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Frank J. Chut, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4459 Doc: 20 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Vyacheslav Fyodorovitch Rizkhov was convicted after a bench trial of unlawful

procurement of naturalization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a). The district court

sentenced Rizkhov to 4 months in prison and a year of supervised release. Rizkhov appeals

his conviction, arguing that the district court erred in denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29

motion for a judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence that he

knowingly made a false statement in his Form N-400 Application for United States

citizenship. We affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal

de novo. United States v. Smith, 54 F.4th 755, 766 (4th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct.

1097 (2023). In conducting this review, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable

to the prosecution and decide whether substantial evidence supports the verdict.” Id.

(cleaned up). “Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable fact-finder could accept

as adequate and sufficient to support a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). In assessing whether substantial evidence is present,

we are “not entitled to assess witness credibility and must assume that the jury resolved

any conflicting evidence in the prosecution’s favor.” United States v. Robinson, 55 F.4th

390, 404 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant “bear[s] a heavy

burden” under this standard. Smith, 54 F.4th at 766 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Applying this standard, we conclude after review of the record that the evidence

was sufficient to show that Rizkhov knowingly made a false statement in the Form N-400

Application that was material to his procuring naturalization when he stated he had not

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4459 Doc: 20 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

committed a crime or offense for which he was not arrested. See Maslenjak v. United

States, 582 U.S. 335, 340-46 (2017) (discussing elements of § 1425(a) violation).

Although Rizkhov criticizes the testimony and documentary evidence of his false statement

and questions how demonstrative it is of his knowledge and intent in the face of

contradictory evidence, it is the finder of fact, not this court, that weighs the credibility of

the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the evidence presented. United States v.

Caldwell, 7 F.4th 191, 209 (4th Cir. 2021). The district court as finder of fact heard the

testimony and received the documentary evidence and could assess the credibility and

weight to be afforded to each. Because we decline to second-guess the court’s

determination as finder of fact, Robinson, 55 F.4th at 404, this challenge does not entitle

Rizkhov to relief on appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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