United States of America v. Theophilus Lamar Davis, Ii

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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). He was
sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Davis raises
two issues: (1) whether the district court erred by denying
Davis’s motion for acquittal; and (2) whether there was
insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Count 1. 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. As we noted
above, the evidence was sufficient. See Palomino-Coronado, 805
F.3d at 130. A “defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge must

-- 2 of 3 --

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 Cir. 2012)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 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 of 3 --