US v. Anthony Payne

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cr-00223-TDC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999999107].. [16-4344]

Appeal: 16-4344

Doc: 49

Filed: 01/06/2017

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4344

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY LAMONT PAYNE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge.
(8:15-cr-00223-TDC-1)

Submitted:

December 29, 2016

Decided:

January 6, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Megan E. Coleman, MARCUSBONSIB,
Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein,
Mulroe, Special Assistant United
Weisman, Assistant United States
for Appellee.

LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
United States Attorney, Conor
States Attorney, Hollis Raphael
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4344

Doc: 49

Filed: 01/06/2017

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
A

federal

involuntary
(2012).

jury

convicted

manslaughter,

in

Anthony

violation

Lamont

of

18

Payne

U.S.C.

of

§ 1112

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
arising

from

the

Specifically,

victim’s

Payne

death

asserts

in

automobile

the

that

an

evidence

collision.
failed

establish that his actions caused the victim’s death.

to

We review

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).

United States
In determining

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
fact

could

accept

as

adequate

and

sufficient

to

support

a

conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id.

(internal

quotation

marks
2

omitted).

Furthermore,

Appeal: 16-4344

Doc: 49

Filed: 01/06/2017

Pg: 3 of 5

“[d]eterminations of credibility are within the sole province of
the

jury

and

are

not

susceptible

to

judicial

review.”

Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1112 (2012), manslaughter is the
unlawful killing of a human being without malice; involuntary
manslaughter

includes

such

killing

in

the

commission

of

an

unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission of
a

lawful

act

without

due

caution

that

might

produce

death.

United States v. Pardee, 368 F.2d 368, 373 (4th Cir. 1966).

To

be

be

convicted

within

the

conduct.
1997).

of
risk

involuntary
reasonably

manslaughter,
foreseeable

the
by

death
the

must

defendant’s

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.”
Wipf,

397

F.3d

632,

635

Id.; see also United States v.
(8th

Cir.

2005)

(conviction

for

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
which

the

jury

could

conclude

that

Payne

was

guilty

of

involuntary manslaughter.
Payne next argues that the district court erred in denying
his request for a reduction in offense level for acceptance of
responsibility.

“We review the district court’s decision to
3

Appeal: 16-4344

Doc: 49

Filed: 01/06/2017

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.”

United

State v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal
quotations

omitted).

Pursuant

to

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual § 3E1.1 (2016), a defendant is entitled to a reduction in
offense level if he has promptly accepted responsibility for the
offense.
In

order

to

receive

a

reduction

for

acceptance

of

responsibility, “the defendant must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that he has clearly recognized and affirmatively
accepted

personal

responsibility

for

his

criminal

conduct.”

Kise, 369 F.3d at 771 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The

district court’s determination is entitled to great deference.
Id.

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.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

4

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 16-4344

Doc: 49

contentions

are

Filed: 01/06/2017

adequately

Pg: 5 of 5

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5