Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 15-4318
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00620-WDQ-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
April 4, 2016
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Graham appeals his conviction for attempted Hobbs
Act
robbery,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
1951(a)
(2012);
violence,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
924(c)
(2012);
and
He also argues
We affirm.
on
the
use
of
leading
questions.
United
States
v.
Durham, 319 F.2d 590, 592 (4th Cir. 1963); see United States v.
Hicks, 748 F.2d 854, 859 (4th Cir. 1984).
The evil to be
avoided
memory
is
that
of
supplying
false
for
the
F.3d
767,
773
(4th
Cir.
1993)
([R]eversal
is
court
did
Government
asked
summarizing
the
not
the
witness
abuse
its
disputed
answer
discretion.
question,
to
that
it
When
was
point.
the
merely
Thus,
the
review
de
novo
supporting a conviction.
the
See id.
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
226, 233 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 502 (2014).
We
omitted).
reasonable
As
doubt.
reviewing
Id.
court,
(internal
we
may
quotation
not
marks
reweigh
the
United States v.
Roe, 606 F.3d 180, 186 (4th Cir. 2010), and must examine the
evidence in a cumulative context rather than in a piecemeal
fashion, United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 863 (4th Cir.
1996)
(en
banc).
Consequently,
[r]eversal
for
insufficient
U.S.L.W.
(No. 15-7332).
A
Hobbs
Act
violation
requires
proof
of
two
elements:
917, 922 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
crime
that
strongly
corroborates
that
intent.
United
Here,
the parties dispute only whether Graham had the requisite intent
to commit a robbery.
Graham argues that the meaning of the phrase he spoke to
the victimKick that shit outcannot be easily deciphered.
Appellants Br. at 7.
the
phrase
is
self-evident
in
the
context
in
which
it
was
mask to hide his face when he knocked on the victims door near
midnight.
easily
conclude
from
J.A. 48.
these
facts
A reasonable jury
that
Graham
had
the
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED