United States of America v. Steve Jacob Joseph, a/k/a Steve O

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4249
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVE JACOB JOSEPH, a/k/a Steve O,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:14-cr-00008-MSD-DEM-2)
Submitted: December 29, 2015 Decided: April 1, 2016
Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Anderson, ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for Appellant. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, Steve Jacob Joseph was convicted of
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A); 846 (2012). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 783 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising for the
court’s consideration whether the district court erred in
refusing to admit Joseph’s videotape evidence and determining
the sentence. Joseph has filed several pro se supplemental
briefs raising additional issues, including challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence. The Government
did not file a brief. After reviewing the record, we affirm.
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and will
sustain the verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed “in
the light most favorable to the [G]overnment,” to support the
verdicts. United States v. Hamilton, 699 F.3d 356, 361 (4th
Cir. 2012). “[S]ubstantial 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.” United States v. Cornell, 780 F.3d 616,
630 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,
136 S. Ct. 127 (2015). It is for the jury, not the court, “to
weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses.”

-- 2 of 4 --

3
United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record
and conclude that there was more than sufficient trial evidence
to sustain Joseph’s drug conspiracy conviction. We also
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
excluding Joseph’s enhanced videotape. See United States v.
Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of
review).
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46
(2007). We first review for significant procedural error, and
if the sentence is free from such error, we then consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. The
district court commits a procedural error if it fails to
calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines
sentence, treats the Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, considers
erroneous facts, or fails to adequately explain the chosen
sentence. Id. In assessing Guidelines calculations, the Court
reviews factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de
novo, and unpreserved arguments for plain error. United
States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012). Because
Joseph did not object to any sentencing factor or request a
particular sentence, our review of the sentence is for plain

-- 3 of 4 --

4
error. Id. We conclude that Joseph’s sentence is substantively
and procedurally reasonable. Finally, we have considered
Joseph’s other pro se arguments, including his challenge to the
trial court’s decision to allow him to proceed pro se and his
attack on the court’s jurisdiction, and find them to be without
merit. See Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1179-80 (10th Cir.
2008) (rejecting similar jurisdictional arguments as frivolous).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the conviction and sentence. This
court requires counsel inform Joseph, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Joseph requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Joseph. 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

-- 4 of 4 --