UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4678
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WANDA DELORIS PERRY, a/k/a Wanda Denise Perry,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00262-NCT-1)
Submitted: May 3, 2011 Decided: May 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Clark Fischer, RANDOLPH & FISCHER, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley E. Rand, United States Attorney,
Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A grand jury indicted Wanda Denise Perry on five
counts of willfully and knowingly make a materially false
statement and representation to a department of the executive
branch, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2006). She was
also charged with one count of stealing, purloining, and
converting to her own use approximately $20,311 that belonged to
the United States.
The trial jury found Perry guilty of all six charges
in the indictment; she was sentenced to sixteen months in prison
and ordered to pay a $600 assessment and $20,311 in restitution.
Perry appeals her conviction, contending that the district court
erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because
the misrepresentations she made were not material. We affirm.
This court reviews the denial of a Rule 29 motion de
novo. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir.
2005). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence following a
conviction, the court is to construe the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Government, assuming its credibility and
drawing all favorable inferences from it, and will sustain the
jury’s verdict if any rational trier of fact could have found
the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable
doubt. United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir.
2005); United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir.
2
2002). “If there is substantial evidence to support the
verdict, after viewing all of the evidence and the inferences
therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government,” the
court must affirm. United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148
(4th Cir. 1994). Furthermore, this court “cannot make [its] own
credibility determinations but must assume that the jury
resolved all contradictions in testimony in favor of the
Government.” United States v. United Med. & Surgical Supply
Corp., 989 F.2d 1390, 1402 (4th Cir. 1993).
To prove a violation of § 1001, the Government
must establish that (1) the defendant made a false
statement to a governmental agency or concealed a fact
from it or used a false document knowing it to be
false, (2) the defendant acted knowingly or willfully,
and (3) the false statement or concealed fact was
material to a matter within the jurisdiction of the
agency.
United States v. Ismail, 97 F.3d 50, 60 (4th Cir. 1996)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “A fact about a matter
within an agency's jurisdiction is material under § 1001 if it
has a natural tendency to influence agency action or is capable
of influencing agency action.” Ismail, 97 F.3d at 60 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “[t]here is no requirement
that the false statement actually influence or effect [sic] the
decision making process of a department.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and alterations omitted).
3
The evidence is overwhelming that the Housing
Authority of Winston-Salem, which administered a program that
resulted in the expenditure of federal funds, actually relied on
Perry’s misrepresentations to award significant financial
benefits to her to which she was not entitled. We accordingly
conclude that the district court properly denied the motion for
judgment of acquittal and affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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