UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-5122
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL ANTHONY DRAVEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (4:08-cr-00016-RBS-TEM-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Ellenson, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES ELLENSON, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, Lisa R. McKeel, Brian J. Samuels, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, Michael Anthony Draven was
convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit murder for hire,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) (2006), carjacking and
aiding and abetting such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
2119, 2 (2006) and one count of murder with a firearm in
relation to a crime of violence and aiding and abetting such
conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j), 2 (2006). On
appeal, Draven asserts that the evidence was insufficient to
support the convictions. Concluding that substantial evidence
supports the convictions, we affirm.
Draven was involved in an affair with Catherina Voss
while she was married to Cory Voss, the victim. Catherina
wanted Cory dead in order to be free of the marriage and for
financial gain. Draven also expressed a desire to have Cory
murdered and went about discussing possible methods and locating
and paying a hitman. On the night of the murder, Draven was in
telephone contact with the hitman and drove to an area close to
where the murder occurred. After the murder, he shared in
Catherina’s financial reward received by virtue of a death
benefit. Subsequently, he discussed possible alibis with the
hitman and lied to law enforcement about his relationship to
Catherina and the hitman and his whereabouts the night of the
murder.
2
“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction bears a heavy burden.”
United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A jury’s verdict “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); see United States v. Perkins,
470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2006). 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.” United States v. Alerre, 430
F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The court considers both circumstantial and direct
evidence, drawing all reasonable inferences from such evidence
in the government’s favor. United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d
326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). In resolving issues of substantial
evidence, this court does not reweigh the evidence or reassess
the factfinder’s determination of witness credibility, see
United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008), and
“can reverse a conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the
prosecution’s failure is clear.” United States v. Moye,
454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
3
The Government’s theory of the case was that Draven
was an active participant in the conspiracy and aided and
abetted in the carjacking, robbery and murder. “Because a
conspiracy is by nature clandestine and covert, there rarely is
direct evidence of such an agreement . . . [C]onspiracy is
usually proven by circumstantial evidence.” United States v.
Yearwood, 518 F.3d 220, 225 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). We conclude there was more than
substantial evidence to show that Draven participated as a co-
conspirator in a murder-for-hire scheme to have Cory Voss
murdered.
We also conclude that Draven was guilty as an aider
and abetter in the murder of Cory Voss. A defendant is guilty
of aiding and abetting if he has “knowingly associated himself
with and participated in the criminal venture.” United
States v. Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “The Pinkerton * doctrine makes a
person liable for substantive offenses committed by a co-
conspirator when their commission is reasonably foreseeable and
in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Ashley, 606
F.3d 135, 142-43 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 3245
(2010). The evidence clearly showed that the substantive
*
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647 (1946).
4
offenses committed as a result of the conspiracy were reasonably
foreseeable to Draven.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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
5