UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4094
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARVIN L. BINION,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:09-cr-00160-DKC-1)
Submitted: November 8, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Zucker, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN ZUCKER, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Bryan E. Foreman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Marvin Binion of two counts of making
false statements under oath, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623
(2006). He was sentenced to concurrent twenty-one-month terms.
He now appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to
convict him on Count Two, which related to a statement Binion
made under oath concerning a Bentley he had owned. We affirm.
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence, we consider whether the evidence, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the Government, was sufficient for a
rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Cameron, 573 F.3d 179,
183 (4th Cir. 2009). We must sustain a verdict supported by
substantial evidence. Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80. We do not
review the credibility of witnesses, and we assume the jury
resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the
Government. United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 312 (4th Cir.
2002).
At his sentencing in a separate criminal matter, there
was a discussion about Binion’s assets, including several
vehicles that he had not included when completing a personal
financial statement form. Binion’s attorney informed the court
that Binion had sold the Bentley in the previous two months so
2
that he would have money for living expenses. Binion, who was
under oath, then stated, “I needed the money, so a friend of
mine loaned me the money. I gave him the car and that was
several months ago, and that’s the money I lived off.” Count
Two charged that Binion knew this statement to be false because
Binion had sold the vehicle for $68,000 just eight days prior to
the hearing, and the proceeds from the sale had not been used
for his living expenses during the previous months.
We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to
convict Binion on Count Two. The evidence, especially the
testimony of his probation officer, established Binion’s
propensity to conceal and misrepresent his assets in an apparent
effort to avoid a fine in the separate criminal matter. The
jury could have concluded that the unsubstantiated story about a
loan from an unidentified friend was but another in a series of
lies about his finances.
We therefore affirm. 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