UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4776
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEONARD EARL ROULHAC,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:09-cr-00115-MSD-TEM-1)
Submitted: October 12, 2011 Decided: October 26, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan H. Yamamoto, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Sherrie
S. Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leonard Earl Roulhac appeals his conviction and sentence
for many offenses arising from a series of bank robberies he
committed over a five-month period ending in May 2009. Finding
no error, we affirm.
Roulhac was charged in a 32-count indictment with one count
of attempting to interfere with commerce by robbery, see 18
U.S.C. § 1951(a), 11 counts of bank robbery and attempted bank
robbery, see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), nine counts of using and
brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c), ten counts of possession of a firearm after having
been convicted of a felony, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one
count of possession of a short-barreled shotgun, see 26 U.S.C.
§ 5861(d). Two counts were eventually severed from the
remaining charges, and Roulhac was convicted by a jury of all
remaining counts.
The district court sentenced Roulhac to 170 months’
imprisonment each on 12 counts, to be served concurrently; 120
months each on nine counts, to be served concurrently; 84 months
on one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of
violence, to be served consecutively; and 300 months for each of
eight additional counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime
of violence, to be served consecutively.
2
Roulhac makes three arguments on appeal, each of which we
reject. 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.
Roulhac first maintains that the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to strike a particular juror for cause.
However, a district court enjoys broad discretion in conducting
voir dire, see Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 594-95 (1976),
and the district court was well within its discretion in this
case. Roulhac also argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support the convictions on counts of committing the robberies or
possessing or using a firearm. We conclude, though, that ample
evidence supported the convictions. See United States v. Moye,
454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (holding that we
must affirm the jury’s verdict against a sufficiency challenge
“if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the Government, to support [it]” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Finally, Roulhac maintains that the
district court misconstrued 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in ordering his
84-month sentence to run consecutively to all other counts of
conviction. However, the Supreme Court recently rejected
3
Roulhac’s proposed construction of that statute. See Abbott v.
United States, 131 S. Ct. 18, 23 (2010).
AFFIRMED
4