UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4951
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALICE P. GOODE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-381)
Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006
Before LUTTIG* and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Katherine Martin, ELIADES & ELIADES, Hopewell, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Stephen W.
Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
*
Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not
participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of
the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Alice P. Goode appeals her conviction by a jury of
conspiracy to make false statements to acquire firearms from a
federally licensed firearms dealer and to cause the dealer to
maintain false records (Count 1), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
(2000), making a false statement in connection with the acquisition
of a Jennings 9mm semi-automatic pistol from a federally licensed
firearms dealer (Count 20), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,
922(a)(6) (2000), and causing a federally licensed firearms dealer
to maintain false records with regard to the Jennings firearm
(Count 41), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 924(a)(1)(A) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). She contends that the
district court erred by denying her motion for judgment of
acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. We affirm.
Goode contends that the evidence did not support her
convictions. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a
Rule 29 motion. United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 700 (4th
Cir. 2006). Where, as here, the motion was based on claims of
insufficient evidence, “[t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained
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). We have reviewed the trial testimony in the joint
appendix and the materials contained in the supplemental joint
appendix and are convinced that the evidence was sufficient to
- 3 -
convict Goode on all counts. See United States v. Cardwell, 433
F.3d 378, 390 (4th Cir. 2005) (discussing elements of § 371
offense), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 2006 WL 565581 (U.S. Apr. 3,
2006) (No. 05-9567); United States v. Abfalter, 340 F.3d 646, 653
(8th Cir. 2003) (discussing elements of § 924(a)(1)(A) offense);
United States v. Dillon, 150 F.3d 754, 759 (7th Cir. 1998)
(discussing elements of § 922(a)(6) offense).
Accordingly, we affirm Goode’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
- 4 -