United States v. Winkler

261 F. App'x 619
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 17, 2008
Docket07-4416
StatusUnpublished

This text of 261 F. App'x 619 (United States v. Winkler) 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. Winkler, 261 F. App'x 619 (4th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sofia Krait Winkler was found guilty by a jury of Count 1, conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000), and Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, false statements related to naturalization or citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1015(a) (West Supp.2007). She was sentenced to twenty-five months of imprisonment. On appeal, Winkler argues that the district court erred in denying her request for a jury instruction on entrapment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We find no reversible error in the district court’s refusal to issue the instruction. United States v. Phan, 121 F.3d 149, 154 (4th Cir.1997) (stating review standard). The record does not support Winkler’s claim that she was induced to commit her crimes and that she had no previous predisposition to do so. See Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S.Ct. 883, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988); United States v. Sarihifard, 155 F.3d 301, 308 (4th Cir.1998). In particular, Winkler failed in her evidentiary burden to establish grounds for the affirmative defense, United States v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 29, 33 n. 8 (4th Cir.1995), and the evidence of her predisposition to commit the crimes was abundant. United States v. Sligh, 142 F.3d 761, 762-63 (4th Cir.1998).

Accordingly, we affirm her convictions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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

Mathews v. United States
485 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Cedric Orlando Lewis
53 F.3d 29 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Tai Anh Phan
121 F.3d 149 (Fourth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Vaughn Monroe Sligh
142 F.3d 761 (Fourth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Mohammad Sarihifard
155 F.3d 301 (Fourth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 F. App'x 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-winkler-ca4-2008.