US v. Shakeen Northcutt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cr-00038-AWA-DEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999679348].. [15-4129, 15-4130]

Appeal: 15-4129

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/16/2015

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4129

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAKEEN D. NORTHCUTT,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-4130

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAKEEN D. NORTHCUTT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge.
(4:14-cr-00038-AWA-DEM-1; 4:14-cr-00038-AWADEM-2)

Submitted:

September 30, 2015

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

October 16, 2015

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 15-4129

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/16/2015

Pg: 2 of 5

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fernando Groene, FERNANDO GROENE, P.C., Williamsburg, Virginia;
Timothy J. Quick, TIMOTHY J. QUICK, P.C., Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for Appellants.
Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Robert E. Bradenham, II, Assistant United States
Attorney, India Richardson, Third Year Law Student, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-4129

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/16/2015

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM
Shakeen D. Northcutt and Rakeen D. Northcutt appeal their
convictions

for

conspiracy

to

obstruct,

delay

and

affect

commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012).
Both argue that there was insufficient evidence to support their
convictions and that the Government improperly vouched for the
credibility of the coconspirator witnesses.
We
novo.
“The

review

challenges

to

the

sufficiency

of

evidence

de

United States v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
jury’s

substantial

verdict

must

be

upheld

evidence

in

the

record

on
to

appeal

if

support

there
it,

is

where

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.”
United

States

v.

Perry,

757

F.3d

166,

175

(4th

Cir.

2014)

(emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 1000 (2015).
We

view

the

evidence

and

reasonable

inferences

therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government.

drawn
United

States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997).

“In

determining whether there is substantial evidence to support a
verdict, we defer to the jury’s determinations of credibility
and resolutions of conflicts in the evidence, as they are within
the

sole

province

of

the

jury
3

and

are

not

susceptible

to

Appeal: 15-4129

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/16/2015

judicial review.”

Pg: 4 of 5

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 303

(4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 135
S.

Ct.

421

(2014).

reasonable

“[I]f

the

interpretations,

evidence

interpretation to believe.”

the

supports

jury

different,

decides

which

United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d

267, 283 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Northcutts argue that the evidence was insufficient to
support

their

convictions

because

the

testimony

of

the

coconspirator witnesses contained too many inconsistencies for
the

jury

to

accept

any

of

it

as

credible.

Despite

the

discrepancies that the Northcutts reference in their appellate
brief, we “assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in
the testimony in favor of the Government.”
186.

Roe, 606 F.3d at

Because there is sufficient evidence in the record to

convict

and

we

do

not

review

the

jury’s

credibility

determination, we reject this argument.
As to their argument that the Government vouched for the
coconspirator
failed

to

witnesses’

object

to

credibility,

this

alleged

because

vouching

occurred, we review for plain error only.
States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013).

the
at

Northcutts

the

time

it

Henderson v. United

To satisfy plain error

review, the Northcutts must establish that: (1) there was an
error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected their
substantial rights.

Id.

We conclude that, in view of the
4

Appeal: 15-4129

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/16/2015

Pg: 5 of 5

entire record, the Northcutts have failed to demonstrate that
their

substantial

statements.

rights

were

affected

by

the

challenged

Accordingly, we reject this argument and affirm

their convictions.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5