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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999812272].. [15-4457]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4457 Doc: 35 Filed: 05/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4457 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. SETH KAMOSE ALI, Defendant - Appellant.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) Submitted: April 21, 2016 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 4, 2016 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-4457 Doc: 35 Filed: 05/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Seth Kamose Ali appeals his conviction of assault on a 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. Second, 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 clerical error. We review de novo a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 228 (4th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Mar. 22, 2016) (No. 15-8637). “The question is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable quotation marks omitted). not sole review credibility province review.” of the doubt.” Id. (internal In conducting this analysis, we do determinations, jury and not which “are susceptible within to the judicial United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). To violate 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), “a defendant must: (1) forcibly; (2) assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with; (3) a designated federal officer; (4) while 2 Appeal: 15-4457 Doc: 35 Filed: 05/04/2016 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 subsection.” Cir. 2002) United States v. Arrington, 309 F.3d 40, 44 (D.C. (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted). 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 the door but maintained Peachey’s left hand. strong pressure on it, trapping 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 Peachey. 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 the Government. Burgos, 94 F.3d at 863. Because a reasonable jury could have determined that Ali intended to assault Peachey, 3 Appeal: 15-4457 Doc: 35 Filed: 05/04/2016 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 clerical error. 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 Peachey, but the judgment states that Ali was convicted of 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. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before We dispense with contentions this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED 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?