United States of America v. Michael Florig

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4472
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL FLORIG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:15-cr-00056-PJM-1)
Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: January 14, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard J. Link, Jr., KARPEL, LINK & CAPORALETTI, Rockville,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Hollis Raphael Weisman, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
In a bench trial before a magistrate judge, Michael Florig
was convicted of theft of government property. The district
court affirmed his conviction. On appeal, Florig argues that
there was insufficient evidence that the property found in his
possession belonged to the Government because the only evidence
on this issue was circumstantial.
“We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
de novo. If, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Government, we find there is substantial evidence to
support the conviction, we will affirm the jury verdict.”
United States v. McDonnell, 792 F.3d 478, 515 (4th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), petition for
cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Oct. 15, 2015) (No. 15-474).
Significantly, “circumstantial evidence is treated no
differently than direct evidence, and may be sufficient to
support a guilty verdict even though it does not exclude every
reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.” United
States v. Gray, 137 F.3d 765, 772 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal
quotation marks omitted). In this case, the circumstantial
evidence that the property found in Florig’s car belonged to the
commissary where he worked, as aptly summarized in the district
court’s opinion, was overwhelming. Accordingly, we conclude
that the evidence was sufficient to support Florig’s conviction.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We affirm the judgment of the district court. 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

-- 3 of 3 --