USCA4 Appeal: 23-4342 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4342

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERRICK A. THOMPSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, Chief District Judge. (7:21-cr-00019-EKD-3)

Submitted: June 6, 2024 Decided: August 30, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Aaron B. Houchens, AARON B. HOUCHENS, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, Michael A. Baudinet, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4342 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Derrick A. Thompson appeals his conviction following a jury trial for conspiracy to

commit offenses against the United States, in violation of

. The objects of

the conspiracy included knowingly selling and transporting black walnut trees taken in

violation of the Lacey Act,

(a)(1); stealing and purloining goods and

property of the United States of a value exceeding $1,000, to wit, black walnut trees, in

violation of

; and removing timber from public lands of the United States

with the intent to export or dispose of the same, in violation of

. On

appeal, Thompson argues that the district court should have granted his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29

motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to

prove that an agreement existed between Thompson and his coconspirators or that

Thompson knowingly and willingly entered into any such agreement. He also suggests

that the evidence failed to establish any overt act committed in furtherance of the

conspiracy. Accordingly, he maintains that his conviction should be reversed. For the

following reasons, we affirm.

“We review de novo a district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion.” United States v.

Moody,

, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). We “draw[] all reasonable inferences

from the facts,” viewing them “in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” United

States v. Denton,

, 179 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted), and

“will uphold the verdict if . . . it is supported by substantial evidence,” United States v.

Savage,

(4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Substantial

evidence “is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4342 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). The relevant “legal question [is] whether, after viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could

have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Musacchio v.

United States,

, 243 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly,

“[a] defendant who brings a sufficiency challenge bears a heavy burden, as appellate

reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence is confined to cases where the prosecution’s

failure is clear.” Savage,

(internal quotation marks omitted). “We do not

reweigh the evidence or the credibility of witnesses, but assume that the jury resolved all

contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government.” United States v. Ziegler,

, 232 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To convict Thompson of a § 371 conspiracy, the Government was required to prove

(1) an unlawful agreement to commit an offense by two or more persons; (2) willing and

knowing participation by the defendant; and (3) “an overt act committed in furtherance of

the conspiracy.” United States v. Vinson,

(4th Cir. 2017). Importantly,

“[b]y its very nature, a conspiracy is clandestine and covert, thereby frequently resulting in

little direct evidence of such an agreement. Hence, a conspiracy generally is proved by

circumstantial evidence and the context in which the circumstantial evidence is adduced.”

United States v. Burgos,

(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citations omitted).

Such circumstantial evidence “may consist of a defendant’s relationship with other

members of the conspiracy, the length of this association, the defendant’s attitude and

conduct, and the nature of the conspiracy.”

(cleaned up).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4342 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/30/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

Here, the evidence taken as a whole and viewed in a light most favorable to the

Government was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that an unlawful agreement

existed among Thompson and his coconspirators and that Thompson willingly and

knowingly entered into this agreement. The Government also proffered adequate evidence

of overt acts committed by both Thompson and his coconspirators that the jury could have

reasonably concluded were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

4