United States v. Brown

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4251

HOWARD ELLIOT BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-00-232)

Submitted: September 25, 2001

Decided: October 19, 2001

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attor-

ney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

2 UNITED STATES v. BROWN

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Howard Elliot Brown was found guilty by a jury of two counts of

transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, pursuant to

18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2312 (1994). The court imposed a sentence of forty-

seven months incarceration. This appeal followed.

Brown challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his

conviction. The elements of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 are: (1) the defendant

transported or caused to be transported in interstate commerce; (2) a

stolen vehicle; (3) which the defendant knew to be stolen. United

States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102, 110 (4th Cir. 1990). Brown chal-

lenges only the district court’s denial of his motion for acquittal, Fed.

R. Crim. P. 29, based on his claim that the evidence was not sufficient

to support a finding that he had knowledge the motor vehicles he sold

were stolen.

Brown’s conviction must be affirmed if the evidence, viewed in the

light most favorable to the government, is sufficient for any rational

jury to find the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v.

Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In evaluating the

sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the

witnesses, and we assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in

the testimony in favor of the government. United States v. Romer, 148

F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998). An inference of knowledge of the

stolen character of property arises from unexplained possession of

recently stolen property. United States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d at 113;

Battaglia v. United States, 205 F.2d 824, 826 (4th Cir. 1953). With

these standards in mind, our review of the briefs and joint appendix

makes clear that there was sufficient evidence to support Brown’s

convictions.

UNITED STATES v. BROWN 3

Accordingly, we affirm Brown’s convictions. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED