US v. Franklin

Filing 920070405

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5072 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD HENRY FRANKLIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00080) Submitted: March 12, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Sara E. Flannery, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Henry Franklin appeals his conviction for one count of falsification of government records in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2073 (2000).* Franklin For the reasons that follow, we affirm. that the district court erred in contends denying his motions for judgment of acquittal filed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. This court reviews a district court's United States v. Where, as here, decision to deny a Rule 29 motion de novo. Ryan-Webster, 353 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2003). the motions were based on an allegation of insufficient evidence, the verdict must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). "[S]ubstantial evidence is 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. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The court reviews both direct and circumstantial evidence and permits the Government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established. States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). United Franklin was charged with various offenses in a 25-count indictment. The government dismissed one count, and the jury acquitted Franklin on the remaining 23 counts. - 2 - * In order to prove that Franklin falsified government records in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2073, the Government had to establish that: (1) the defendant was an officer, clerk or employee of an agency of the United States; (2) he was charged with keeping accounts or records; (3) he made a false entry or report in such account or record; and (4) he did so with intent to deceive, mislead, injure or defraud. Franklin contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because it did not establish that (1) he failed to record transactions with the intent to deceive or defraud, or (2) he actually embezzled any funds. The district court did not err in denying Franklin's motions. The videotaped and testimonial evidence established that Franklin failed to properly enter stamp sales into his computer, rendering his Daily Financial Reports (PS Forms 1412) inaccurate and creating excess cash in his cash drawer. While the Government was not required to prove that Franklin took the money, the weight of the evidence suggested that the excess money from the unrecorded stamp sales was both not reported and missing. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, ample evidence supported the inference that Franklin created false reports by omitting data and that he did so with the intent to deceive or defraud. Accordingly, we affirm Franklin's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and - 3 - legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 4 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?