Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4208
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:10-cr-00134-REP-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Allen
Ryan
Alleyne
appeals
his
conviction
and
argues
that
the
evidence
was
We review
the
evidence
prosecution,
evidence.
evidence
the
in
the
verdict
light
is
most
supported
that
reasonable
favorable
finder
by
to
the
substantial
Substantial evidence is
of
fact
could
accept
as
rare
where
the
prosecutions
failure
is
clear.
United States v.
evidence
presented.
and
resolves
any
conflicts
in
the
evidence
He claims that
the only witness who connected him to the robbery was inherently
incredible.
We
refuse
to
substitute
our
own
credibility
Although no direct
such
participation
an
in
inference
the
planning
was
and
reasonable
execution
given
of
the
Alleynes
robbery.
He claims
instructions
on
aiding
and
abetting
liability
the
government
(usually
during
its
presentation
of
conviction
beyond
those
presented
by
the
grand
jury.
is
such
other
amendment
altered
is
that
than
to
the
that
fatal
change
defendant
charged
variance
because
the
elements
of
is
actually
convicted
in
the
the
indictment.
A
the
offense
of
United
States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 203 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
jury,
must
be
preserved by objection.
corrected
on
appeal,
even
when
not
the
defendant
is
charged
or
itself
create
separate
2010).
defendant
may
be
convicted
of
aiding
and
1969).
4
We
do
constructively
not
find
amended
that
during
Alleynes
indictment
trial.
The
was
indictment
Alleyne
abetting theory.
on
notice
of
the
Governments
aiding
and
subsequent prosecutions.
795-96 (4th Cir. 1998).
the
Governments
intention
to
pursue
the
indictment
against him.
is
an
aiding
and
abetting
insufficient
to
bar
re-prosecution
facts.
Alleynes
final
appellate
argument
is
that
the
brandishing
firearm.
The
courts
finding
elevated
We
Cir. 2002).
We first note, as Alleyne has conceded, that Supreme
Court
precedent
constitutional
finding
that
despite
the
offense.
do
not
forecloses
rights
he
was
jurys
were
any
violated
accountable
finding
argument
that
by
for
he
that
the
district
brandishing
was
Alleynes
not
the
guilty
courts
firearm
of
that
the
district
courts
finding
otherwise
We
clearly
erroneous.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal