US v. Anthony Payne
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cr-00223-TDC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4344]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
ANTHONY LAMONT PAYNE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge.
December 29, 2016
January 6, 2017
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Megan E. Coleman, MARCUSBONSIB,
Rod J. Rosenstein,
Mulroe, Special Assistant United
Weisman, Assistant United States
LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
United States Attorney, Conor
States Attorney, Hollis Raphael
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
The district court sentenced Payne to 60 months of
imprisonment and he now appeals.
Finding no error, we affirm.
On appeal, Payne first challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction for involuntary manslaughter
establish that his actions caused the victim’s death.
a district court’s decision to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion
for a judgment of acquittal de novo.
451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006).
United States v. Smith,
A defendant challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden.
v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).
whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we
determine “whether there is substantial evidence in the record,
when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to
support the conviction.”
United States v. Palacios, 677 F.3d
234, 248 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Substantial evidence is “evidence that a reasonable finder of
conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Pg: 3 of 5
“[d]eterminations of credibility are within the sole province of
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1112 (2012), manslaughter is the
unlawful killing of a human being without malice; involuntary
unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission of
United States v. Pardee, 368 F.2d 368, 373 (4th Cir. 1966).
United States v. Main, 113 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir.
“Foreseeability is to be determined by what a reasonable
person would foresee as a reasonable probability within the risk
of the conduct engaged in.”
Id.; see also United States v.
involuntary manslaughter requires that defendant’s actions were
proximate cause of victim’s death).
We have thoroughly reviewed
the record and conclude that there was sufficient evidence from
Payne next argues that the district court erred in denying
his request for a reduction in offense level for acceptance of
“We review the district court’s decision to
Pg: 4 of 5
deny a reduction in the offense level based on the defendant's
acceptance of responsibility for clear error.”
Kise, 369 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir. 2004).
United States v.
“A finding is clearly
erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
State v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal
Manual § 3E1.1 (2016), a defendant is entitled to a reduction in
offense level if he has promptly accepted responsibility for the
responsibility, “the defendant must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that he has clearly recognized and affirmatively
Kise, 369 F.3d at 771 (internal quotation marks omitted).
district court’s determination is entitled to great deference.
Based on the evidence in the record and our review of the
relevant legal authorities, we conclude that the district court
did not err in denying Payne’s request for an offense level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Pg: 5 of 5
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?