United States of America v. Shakeen D. Northcutt

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4129
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAKEEN D. NORTHCUTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-4130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAKEEN D. NORTHCUTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (4:14-cr-00038-AWA-DEM-1; 4:14-cr-00038-AWA-
DEM-2)
Submitted: September 30, 2015 Decided: October 16, 2015
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fernando Groene, FERNANDO GROENE, P.C., Williamsburg, Virginia;
Timothy J. Quick, TIMOTHY J. QUICK, P.C., Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for Appellants. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Robert E. Bradenham, II, Assistant United States
Attorney, India Richardson, Third Year Law Student, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
PER CURIAM
Shakeen D. Northcutt and Rakeen D. Northcutt appeal their
convictions for conspiracy to obstruct, delay and affect
commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012).
Both argue that there was insufficient evidence to support their
convictions and that the Government improperly vouched for the
credibility of the coconspirator witnesses.
We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence de
novo. United States v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
“The jury’s verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is
substantial evidence in the record to support it, where
substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of
fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a
conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Perry, 757 F.3d 166, 175 (4th Cir. 2014)
(emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 1000 (2015).
We view the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government. United
States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997). “In
determining whether there is substantial evidence to support a
verdict, we defer to the jury’s determinations of credibility
and resolutions of conflicts in the evidence, as they are within
the sole province of the jury and are not susceptible to

-- 3 of 5 --

4
judicial review.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 303
(4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 421 (2014). “[I]f the evidence supports different,
reasonable interpretations, the jury decides which
interpretation to believe.” United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d
267, 283 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Northcutts argue that the evidence was insufficient to
support their convictions because the testimony of the
coconspirator witnesses contained too many inconsistencies for
the jury to accept any of it as credible. Despite the
discrepancies that the Northcutts reference in their appellate
brief, we “assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in
the testimony in favor of the Government.” Roe, 606 F.3d at
186. Because there is sufficient evidence in the record to
convict and we do not review the jury’s credibility
determination, we reject this argument.
As to their argument that the Government vouched for the
coconspirator witnesses’ credibility, because the Northcutts
failed to object to this alleged vouching at the time it
occurred, we review for plain error only. Henderson v. United
States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013). To satisfy plain error
review, the Northcutts must establish that: (1) there was an
error; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected their
substantial rights. Id. We conclude that, in view of the

-- 4 of 5 --

5
entire record, the Northcutts have failed to demonstrate that
their substantial rights were affected by the challenged
statements. Accordingly, we reject this argument and affirm
their convictions.
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

-- 5 of 5 --