US v. Theophilus Davis, II

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00117-MGL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999794247].. [15-4591]

Appeal: 15-4591

Doc: 24

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4591

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THEOPHILUS LAMAR DAVIS, II,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(3:15-cr-00117-MGL-1)

Submitted:

March 18, 2016

Decided:

April 13, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, T. DeWayne Pearson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4591

Doc: 24

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Theophilus Lamar Davis II was found guilty by a jury of
conspiracy to manufacture and pass counterfeit Federal Reserve
notes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012) (Count 1).
sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment.
two issues:
Davis’s

He was

On appeal, Davis raises

(1) whether the district court erred by denying

motion

for

acquittal;

and

(2)

whether

there

insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Count 1.

was
We

affirm.
We review the denial of a motion for acquittal de novo.
See United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005).
When the motion is based on a claim of insufficient evidence,
the verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial
evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government to
support it.

See United States v. Palomino-Coronado, 805 F.3d

127, 130 (4th Cir. 2015).

“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.”

Id.

Reviewing the evidence as required,

we find sufficient evidence for Davis’s conviction.
As his second issue, Davis alleges that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction for Count 1.
above, the evidence was sufficient.
F.3d at 130.

As we noted

See Palomino-Coronado, 805

A “defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge must
2

Appeal: 15-4591

Doc: 24

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

overcome a heavy burden, and reversal for insufficiency must be
confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.”
United

States

v.

Engle,

676

F.3d

405,

419

(4th

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Cir.

2012)

To establish

a § 371 conspiracy, the Government must prove only an agreement
between two or more people to commit a crime against the federal
government and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
See United States v. Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186, 195 (4th Cir. 2009).
Upon review of the record and in light of Davis failing to
overcome

the

heavy

burden,

see

Engle,

676

F.3d

at

419,

his

second issue also fails.
Accordingly,

we

affirm

Davis’s

conviction.

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

3