US v. Steve Joseph
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cr-00008-MSD-DEM-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4249]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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
December 29, 2015
April 1, 2016
Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Virginia, for Appellant.
Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
After a jury trial, Steve Jacob Joseph was convicted of
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
(b)(1)(A); 846 (2012).
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 783 (1967), certifying that there
refusing to admit Joseph’s videotape evidence and determining
briefs raising additional issues, including challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence.
did not file a brief.
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
United States v. Hamilton, 699 F.3d 356, 361 (4th
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.”
Pg: 3 of 4
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record
and conclude that there was more than sufficient trial evidence
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse
of discretion standard.
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.
calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines
sentence, treats the Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider
In assessing Guidelines calculations, the Court
reviews factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de
States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).
Joseph did not object to any sentencing factor or request a
particular sentence, our review of the sentence is for plain
Pg: 4 of 4
We conclude that Joseph’s sentence is substantively
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
See Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1179-80 (10th Cir.
2008) (rejecting similar jurisdictional arguments as frivolous).
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
We therefore affirm the conviction and sentence.
court requires counsel inform Joseph, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
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
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?