United States of America v. ROBERT C. HUNDERTMARK, JR., a/k/a Robert Hundertmark, a/k/a Barry Scheckman, a/k/a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4390
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT C. HUNDERTMARK, JR., a/k/a Robert
Hundertmark, a/k/a Barry Scheckman, a/k/a
Detective Miller,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-02-125)
Submitted: October 3, 2003 Decided: October 23, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jon M. Babineau, SAUNDERS, BABINEAU & BREWBAKER, L.L.C., Suffolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
Robert J. Krask, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Robert C. Hundertmark, Jr., appeals his conviction and
sentence on four counts of knowingly and willfully threatening to
kill, injure, and intimidate with an instrument of interstate
commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) (2000), and three
counts of transmitting threats in interstate commerce, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (2000).
On appeal, Hundertmark asserts the evidence was insufficient
to sustain his convictions. First, he asserts his alleged
statements did not constitute true threats. Second, he asserts the
Government failed to prove he made the statements in question. To
determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support a
conviction, “[t]he verdict of the jury must be sustained if there
is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the
Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,
80 (1942). We are of opinion there was such evidence in this case.
Hundertmark’s arguments are meritless. The Government’s evidence
was sufficient to establish he made threatening statements in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)
(2000). United States v. Spruill, 118 F.3d 221, 228 (4th Cir.
1997); United States v. Darby, 37 F.3d 1059, 1065 (4th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, we affirm Hundertmark’s conviction and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --