US v. Alan Berry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00068-RBH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998600887].. [10-4828]

Appeal: 10-4828

Document: 32

Date Filed: 05/31/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4828

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALAN L. BERRY, a/k/a Alan Lenneau Berry,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00068-RBH-1)

Submitted:

May 26, 2011

Decided:

May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4828

Document: 32

Date Filed: 05/31/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Alan L. Berry was convicted by a jury of theft of
Government

property

and

numerous

counts

of

mail

fraud.

The

evidence at trial showed that Berry devised a scheme to falsely
claim

to

be

benefits.

unable

to

work

in

order

to

collect

disability

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court erred in denying Berry’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 29
motion

for

judgment

of

acquittal.

Although

informed

of

his

right to do so, Berry has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides

that

acquittal

a

where

conviction.

district
the

court

evidence

must

is

enter

insufficient

Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a).

a

judgment
to

of

sustain

a

We review a district

court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal de
United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir.

novo.
2006).

“In

conducting

such

review,

we

must

uphold

a

jury

verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light
most

favorable

to

the

Government,

to

support

it.”

Id.

Substantial 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.”
2

Appeal: 10-4828

Document: 32

Date Filed: 05/31/2011

Page: 3 of 4

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).

Berry “must carry an imposing burden to successfully

challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.” United States v.
Martin, 523 F.3d 281, 288 (4th Cir. 2008).
Berry
denying

his

court,

Berry

contends

motion

for

asserted

that

the

judgment

district

court

acquittal.

because

that,

of

the

erred

In

actual

in

district
Hartford

Insurance Company policy was not entered into evidence, judgment
of acquittal should have been granted on the charges involving
Hartford

Insurance.

However,

several

documents

quoting

the

relevant policy definitions were submitted into evidence, and a
witness

testified

directly
record,

from
we

the

that

the

policy.

conclude

that

language
After

there

a

was

in

the

thorough

documents

was

review

the

sufficient

of

evidence

to

support the jury’s verdict.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court

requires that counsel inform Berry, in writing, of the right to
petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If Berry requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may

move

in

representation.

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
3

Appeal: 10-4828

Document: 32

Date Filed: 05/31/2011

was served on Berry.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Page: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4