US v. Rodney Justin
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00066-JAB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998702490].. [10-5238]
Appeal: 10-5238
Document: 47
Date Filed: 10/18/2011
Page: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY K. JUSTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:09-cr-00066-JAB-1)
Submitted:
October 4, 2011
Decided:
October 18, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott W. Gross, Mt. Clemens, Michigan, for Appellant. Frank P.
Cihlar, Gregory Victor Davis, Katie Bagley, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-5238
Document: 47
Date Filed: 10/18/2011
Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Rodney K. Justin on four counts of
willful failure to file income tax returns, in violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7203 (2006), and four counts of endeavoring to obstruct
and
impede
the
due
administration
of
the
Internal
Revenue
Service Code, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) (2006).
The
district court denied Justin’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motions for
judgment
of
acquittal.
On
appeal,
Justin
challenges
sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions.
the
Finding
no error, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a
motion for a judgment of acquittal.
United States v. Green, 599
F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 271 (2010).
In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we “construe the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government, assuming
its credibility, and drawing all favorable inferences from it,
and will sustain the jury verdict if any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime charged
beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Penniegraft, 641
F.3d 566, 571 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation and emphasis omitted).
“Appellate reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence . . .
will be confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is
clear.”
Green,
599
F.3d
at
367
2
(internal
quotation
marks,
Appeal: 10-5238
Document: 47
Date Filed: 10/18/2011
alteration, and citation omitted).
Page: 3 of 4
“A defendant challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction bears a
heavy burden.”
United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067
(4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To sustain a conviction for “willfully fail[ing] to
. . . make [an income tax] return . . . at the time or times
required
by
Government
law,”
had
to
in
violation
establish
of
three
26
U.S.C.
elements:
§ 7203,
“(1)
the
that
the
defendant was required by law to file a tax return for the year
in question, (2) that he failed to timely file such tax return,
and
(3)
that
the
failure
was
a
willful
failure.”
United
States v. Ostendorff, 371 F.2d 729, 730 (4th Cir. 1967); United
States
v.
Bourque,
541
F.2d
290,
293
(1st
Cir.
1976).
To
establish a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), the Government had
to
prove
obstruct
that
or
Justin
impede
(1)
the
corruptly
due
(2)
administration
endeavored
of
the
(3)
IRS
to
Code.
United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997).
We have reviewed the record of the proceedings below
in
light
sufficient
of
Justin’s
evidence
arguments
clearly
on
appeal
supports
the
and
conclude
jury’s
that
verdict.
Accordingly, we affirm Justin’s convictions and sentence.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
3
the
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 10-5238
Document: 47
Date Filed: 10/18/2011
Page: 4 of 4
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?