US v. Horace Thompson, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00290-GBL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999406766].. [13-4984]
Appeal: 13-4984
Doc: 32
Filed: 07/31/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4984
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HORACE SINCLAIR THOMPSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00290-GBL-1)
Submitted:
July 25, 2014
Decided:
July 31, 2014
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John O. Iweanoge, II, THE IWEANOGE’S FIRM, P.C., Washington,
D.C., for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Michael E. Rich, G. Zachary Terwilliger, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-4984
Doc: 32
Filed: 07/31/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, Horace Sinclair Thompson, Jr., was
convicted
of
arson,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
§§
2,
844(i)
(2012).
On appeal, Thompson challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence
supporting
his
conviction
admission of certain evidence.
and
the
district
court’s
We affirm.
The denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal is
reviewed de novo.
(4th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93
“We review the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a conviction by determining whether there is substantial
evidence in the record, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the government, to support the conviction.”
Id. (quoting
United States v. Madrigal–Valadez, 561 F.3d 370, 374 (4th Cir.
2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
analysis,
“circumstantial
evidence
is
In conducting this
treated
no
differently
than direct evidence, and may be sufficient to support a guilty
verdict
even
hypothesis
though
it
consistent
does
with
not
exclude
innocence.”
every
United
reasonable
States
v.
Jackson, 863 F.2d 1168, 1173 (4th Cir. 1989).
We can reverse a
conviction
only
based
on
insufficient
prosecution’s failure is clear.”
evidence
when
“the
Burks v. United States, 437
U.S. 1, 17 (1978).
To
support
a
conviction
for
arson
under
18
U.S.C.
§ 844(i), the government must prove that the defendant: “(1)
2
Appeal: 13-4984
Doc: 32
Filed: 07/31/2014
Pg: 3 of 4
maliciously; (2) damaged or destroyed a building, vehicle, or
other
real
or
personal
property;
(3)
by
means
of
fire
or
explosive; and (4) the building, vehicle, or personal or real
property was used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any
activity
affecting
interstate
or
foreign
commerce.”
States v. Gullett, 75 F.3d 941, 947 (4th Cir. 1996).
United
Thompson
challenges only the evidence of malicious intent.
After viewing the evidence as a whole and in the light
most favorable to the government, we conclude that there was
sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
The evidence
that the damaged business was failing financially, that Thompson
communicated frequently with the building’s owner on the night
before the fire, and that he lied to police about his burns, as
well as the manner in which the fire was started, entitled the
jury to conclude that Thompson set the fire intentionally.
Thompson
also
challenges
the
district
court’s
admission of evidence regarding the financial condition of the
damaged
business
fire.
We
review
admissibility
of
and
the
the
owner’s
district
evidence
for
insurance
court’s
abuse
of
claims
rulings
after
the
regarding
the
discretion.
States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. 2011).
United
A district
court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, see id.,
or
applies
“erroneous
legal
principles
to
the
case,”
States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1290 (4th Cir. 1995).
3
United
Appeal: 13-4984
Doc: 32
The
Filed: 07/31/2014
challenged
Pg: 4 of 4
evidence
was
relevant
to
proving
Thompson’s motive, and raised no prejudice beyond that which was
inherent in the charges against him.
See United States v. Boyd,
53 F.3d 631, 637 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that evidence is not
unfairly prejudicial if it does not “involve conduct any more
sensational
or
disturbing
defendant] was charged”).
than
the
crimes
with
which
[the
Therefore, the district court did not
abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence. ∗
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
∗
Thompson also asserts that the challenged evidence was
inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Rule 404(b)
is inapplicable because the district court admitted the evidence
under Rule 401, not under Rule 404(b)(2), and the challenged
evidence was not character evidence under Rule 404(b)(1).
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?