US v. Steve Joseph

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cr-00008-MSD-DEM-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999786858].. [15-4249]

Appeal: 15-4249

Doc: 50

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4249

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVE JACOB JOSEPH, a/k/a Steve O,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:14-cr-00008-MSD-DEM-2)

Submitted:

December 29, 2015

Decided:

April 1, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy
Anderson,
ANDERSON
&
ASSOCIATES,
Virginia
Beach,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4249

Doc: 50

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, Steve Jacob Joseph was convicted of
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
cocaine

and

heroin

in

(b)(1)(A); 846 (2012).

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1),

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 783 (1967), certifying that there
are

no

meritorious

court’s

issues

consideration

for

appeal,

whether

the

but

raising
court

district

for
erred

the
in

refusing to admit Joseph’s videotape evidence and determining
the sentence.

Joseph

has

filed

several

pro

se

supplemental

briefs raising additional issues, including challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence.
did not file a brief.

The Government

After reviewing the record, we affirm.

We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and will
sustain the verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed “in
the light most favorable to the [G]overnment,” to support the
verdicts.
Cir.

United States v. Hamilton, 699 F.3d 356, 361 (4th

2012).

reasonable

“[S]ubstantial
finder

of

fact

evidence
could

is

accept

evidence
as

that

adequate

a
and

sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.”

United States v. Cornell, 780 F.3d 616,

630 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,
136 S. Ct. 127 (2015).

It is for the jury, not the court, “to

weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
2

Appeal: 15-4249

United

Doc: 50

States

Filed: 04/01/2016

v.

Harvey,

532

Pg: 3 of 4

F.3d

(internal quotation marks omitted).

326,

333

(4th

Cir.

2008)

We have reviewed the record

and conclude that there was more than sufficient trial evidence
to

sustain

Joseph’s

drug

conspiracy

conviction.

We

also

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
excluding

Joseph’s

enhanced

videotape.

See

United

States v.

Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of
review).
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse
of discretion standard.
(2007).

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46

We first review for significant procedural error, and

if the sentence is free from such error, we then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Id. at 51.

district

if

court

commits

a

procedural

error

it

fails

The
to

calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines
sentence, treats the Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider
the

18

U.S.C.

erroneous
sentence.

§ 3553(a)

facts,
Id.

or

(2012)

fails

to

sentencing
adequately

factors,
explain

considers

the

chosen

In assessing Guidelines calculations, the Court

reviews factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de
novo,

and

unpreserved

arguments

for

plain

error.

States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).

United
Because

Joseph did not object to any sentencing factor or request a
particular sentence, our review of the sentence is for plain
3

Appeal: 15-4249

Doc: 50

error.
and

Id.

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

We conclude that Joseph’s sentence is substantively

procedurally

reasonable.

Finally,

we

have

considered

Joseph’s other pro se arguments, including his challenge to the
trial court’s decision to allow him to proceed pro se and his
attack on the court’s jurisdiction, and find them to be without
merit.

See Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1179-80 (10th Cir.

2008) (rejecting similar jurisdictional arguments as frivolous).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal.

We therefore affirm the conviction and sentence.

This

court requires counsel inform Joseph, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review.

If

Joseph

requests

that

a

petition

be

filed,

but

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

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Joseph.

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

4