UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DOUGLAS D. WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CR-04-396)
Submitted: September 28, 2005 Decided: October 18, 2005
Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Michael S.
Nachmanoff, Meghan S. Skelton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United
States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, Assistant United States
Attorney, Monica M. Goodling, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Douglas D. Washington was convicted by a magistrate
judge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3401 (2000), of simple assault on a
federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (2000). He was
sentenced to eighty days in prison followed by one year of
supervised release and a $500 fine. Following sentencing,
Washington appealed the magistrate judge’s ruling denying his
motion for judgment of acquittal to the district court pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g)(2), and the district court affirmed. On
appeal, Washington contends the district court erred in assessing
the evidence of force and finding it sufficient to sustain his
conviction. Finding no error, we affirm.
Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g), on appeal from a conviction
and/or sentence imposed by a magistrate judge, the “defendant is
not entitled to a trial de novo by a district judge. The scope of
the appeal is the same as in an appeal to the court of appeals from
a judgment entered by a district judge.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
58(g)(2)(D). In determining whether sufficient evidence supports
a conviction, the appropriate inquiry is whether, taking the
evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, any
reasonable trier of fact could have found the Defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,
80 (1942). In bench trials, “the judge weighs the evidence,
determines the credibility of the witnesses, and finds the facts
- 2 -
. . . [and] may select among conflicting inferences to be drawn
from the testimony.” United States v. Bales, 813 F.2d 1289, 1293
(4th Cir. 1987). The standard of review for sufficiency of the
evidence is de novo. See United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862
(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Our review of the record convinces us the district court
properly assessed the evidence under a reasonable person standard,
and there was sufficient evidence to support Washington’s
conviction. Accordingly, we affirm Washington’s conviction and
sentence and the district court’s order affirming the magistrate
judge’s decision. 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
- 3 -