UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4509
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEON DEVON DIZZLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (5:08-cr-00589-MBS-6)
Submitted: May 27, 2011 Decided: June 14, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mario A. Pacella, STROM LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, J.D.
Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Leon Devon Dizzley was
convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1965(h) (West 2000 & Supp. 2010) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 2 (2006). He was sentenced to sixty months of imprisonment.
On appeal, he raises two issues: (1) whether sufficient evidence
supported his conviction; and (2) whether the court’s willful
blindness instruction was proper. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.
Because Dizzley moved for a directed verdict of
acquittal, we review the denial of a motion for acquittal de
novo. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir.
2005). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government as required, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,
80 (1942), we find that Dizzley’s conviction is supported by
substantial evidence. Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693; see United
States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996). We note
that the jury simply disbelieved Dizzley’s testimony that he did
not know he was laundering drug proceeds by engaging in a series
of cash automobile sales that were structured to avoid
detection. We do not review credibility determinations on
appeal. Burgos, 94 F.3d at 863.
Next, Dizzley contests the court’s willful blindness
instruction. In his opening brief, however, Dizzley admits that
2
the court’s instruction was proper. (Appellant’s Br. at 11).
We find no merit to this issue on appeal. Again, the jury made
a credibility determination that Dizzley, an educated man who
had known one of co-conspirators (Avery Terrell Haigler) for
approximately twenty years, knew that he was helping Haigler and
at least one other person launder drug proceeds via cash vehicle
sales.
Accordingly, we 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