UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4808
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL BEHRENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00040-JPB-JES-1)
Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015
Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant. David J. Perri, Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Michael Behrens of two counts of
obstructing and resisting an officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 111(a)(1) (2012). The district court sentenced Behrens to 24
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Behrens’ counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising as an issue for review whether the district court erred
in denying Behrens’ motion for judgment of acquittal. The
Government declined to file a brief. Behrens was informed of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
done so. We affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion
for judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Reed, 780
F.3d 260, 269 (4th Cir. 2015). The jury verdict must be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the government, to support it. Id.
“Substantial evidence is that which ‘a reasonable finder of fact
could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion
of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id.
(quoting United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 139 (4th Cir.
2014)).
To establish the offense of obstructing and resisting an
officer, the government had to prove that: (1) Behrens
2
“forcibly resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated and
interfered” with a federal law enforcement officer; (2) “this
occurred while the officer was engaged in the performance of his
official duties;” and (3) Behrens did so willfully. Potter v.
United States, 691 F.2d 1275, 1280 (8th Cir. 1982); see also
United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 684 (1975) (“All the
statute requires is an intent to assault, not an intent to
assault a federal officer.”). Our review of the record shows
that substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and the
district court did not err in denying Behrens’ motion for
judgment of acquittal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Behrens, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Behrens requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Behrens.
3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4