UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4473
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICHARD DEAN MEARS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-04-212)
Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 20, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Dean Mears, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Richard Dean Mears was convicted
on ten counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341
(West Supp. 2005), one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 343 (West Supp. 2005), and one count of travel in
interstate commerce for a fraudulent purpose (“interstate travel
fraud”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (2000).* The district
court sentenced him to concurrent 114-month prison terms on each
count. Mears timely appeals.
Mears challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his convictions. A jury’s verdict must be upheld on appeal
if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to
the government, to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942). Substantial evidence is defined as “that evidence
which ‘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. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333
(4th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862
(4th Cir. 1996)). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find
that the evidence was sufficient to support Mears’ convictions of
mail fraud, Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25 (1999); United
States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 666 (4th Cir. 2001), wire fraud,
Neder, 527 U.S. at 25; United States v. Vincent, 416 F.3d 593, 600
(7th Cir. 2005); and interstate travel fraud, Brown v. Protective
*
Mears was represented by counsel at his jury trial, but
elected to proceed without counsel at all further proceedings,
including on appeal.
- 2 -
Life Ins. Co., 353 F.3d 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v.
Monas, 128 F.3d 376, 384 (6th Cir. 1997).
Mears also argues that his federal prosecution violates
the prohibition against double jeopardy, that the state authorities
engaged in outrageous conduct in referring his case to the federal
authorities, that the federal prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial
misconduct, and that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment. We
find these claims are meritless. Finally, Mears argues that he was
deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel. However,
because the record does not conclusively show ineffective
assistance of counsel, this claim is not cognizable on direct
appeal. United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we affirm Mears’ convictions and sentence.
Mears’ motion to file an oversized brief is granted. Mears also
filed a motion entitled “Request for Certification or Judicial
Notice of Presentence Report.” To the extent that he asks this
court to consider the presentence report in reviewing his claims,
we grant the motion. Mears’ motion for transcripts is denied as
moot. 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 -