United States of America v. Tony Ogredius Cox

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4253
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY OGREDIUS COX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-03-347)
Submitted: August 26, 2005 Decided: September 27, 2005
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Freedman, WHITE & CRUMPLER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry
L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Tony Ogredius Cox appeals his jury conviction and five-
month sentence for knowingly and willfully making a materially
false statement and representation on a FAA Form 8500-8 in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a)(2) (2000). Cox contends his
conviction should be reversed because there was insufficient
evidence that his misrepresentation was material to a matter within
the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). See
United States v. Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d 1087, 1095 (4th Cir.
1993) (citations omitted). We affirm.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
faces a heavy burden. See United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064,
1067 (4th Cir. 1997). When, as here, the defendant challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence at trial, the relevant question is
whether, taking the view most favorable to the Government, there is
substantial evidence to support the verdict. See Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). This court “ha[s] defined
‘substantial evidence,’ in the context of a criminal action, as
that evidence 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.’” United States v. Newsome, 322
F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94
F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). This court “must
consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts
proven to those sought to be established.” United States v.
Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). With these
standards in mind, and after reviewing the record, we conclude that
the evidence was sufficient to support Cox’s conviction.
Accordingly, we affirm Cox’s conviction and sentence. 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.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --