US v. Seth Kamose Ali
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00090-FDW-DSC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4457]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
SETH KAMOSE ALI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cr-00090-FDW-DSC-1)
April 21, 2016
Before SHEDD and
May 4, 2016
Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anne M. Hayes, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill
Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) (2012).
On appeal, Ali asserts two errors.
First, he argues that the
evidence was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.
he argues that a clerical error exists in the district court’s
judgment and should be corrected.
For the reasons that follow,
we affirm Ali’s conviction but remand to correct the judgment’s
We review de novo a denial of a motion for judgment of
United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 228 (4th Cir.
2016), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Mar. 22,
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
quotation marks omitted).
In conducting this analysis, we do
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
(1) forcibly; (2) assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate,
or interfere with; (3) a designated federal officer; (4) while
Pg: 3 of 4
engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties
. . . (5) [with] the intent to do the acts specified in the
United States v. Arrington, 309 F.3d 40, 44 (D.C.
Here, the only element in dispute is whether Ali intended to
assault Peachey or whether he accidentally closed the car door
on Peachey’s hand.
Peachey testified at trial that he was behind Ali when he
attempted to throw a subpoena into the car through the car door.
Ali slammed the car door shut, but, with Peachey’s hand between
the door and the car frame, the door could not fully close.
Nevertheless, according to Peachey, Ali did not stop pulling on
Peachey’s left hand.
Peachey was forced to use his right hand
to attempt to pull the door open.
Ali continued to pull the
door shut on Peachey’s hand in an active “tug of war” with
Based on this testimony, a reasonable jury could conclude
that, when Ali realized the door would not close, he formed the
intent to assault Peachey by continuing to force the door closed
on Peachey’s hand.
While Ali’s version of events may be equally
plausible, all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of
Burgos, 94 F.3d at 863.
Because a reasonable
jury could have determined that Ali intended to assault Peachey,
Pg: 4 of 4
we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Ali’s
motion for judgment of acquittal.
Ali also asserts that remand is appropriate to correct a
Courts may “at any time correct a clerical
error in a judgment.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
The jury found that
Ali did not use a deadly or dangerous weapon when he assaulted
assault on a federal officer with a deadly and dangerous weapon.
The Government concedes this clerical error and agrees that we
should remand the case to correct it.
We therefore remand this
matter for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error
in the judgment.
Accordingly, we affirm Ali’s conviction.
We dispense with
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
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?