USCA4 Appeal: 22-4191 Doc: 38 Filed: 01/07/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4190

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEPHEN J. PIERRE-PAUL,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 22-4191

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WAYNE RICARDO TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Retired District Judge. (1:21-cr-00144-TSE-2; 1:21-cr-00144- TSE-4) USCA4 Appeal: 22-4191 Doc: 38 Filed: 01/07/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

Submitted: October 29, 2024 Decided: January 7, 2025

Before RICHARDSON, BENJAMIN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Lana Manitta, LAW OFFICE OF LANA MANITTA, PLLC, Purcellville, Virginia, for Appellant Stephen J. Pierre-Paul. Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant Wayne Ricardo Taylor. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Ronald L. Walutes, Assistant United States Attorney, Jacqueline R. Bechara, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4191 Doc: 38 Filed: 01/07/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Stephen J. Pierre-Paul and Wayne Ricardo Taylor

appeal their convictions and sentences after a jury trial for carjacking, and aiding and

abetting such conduct, in violation of

, 2, obstructing commerce by

robbery, and aiding and abetting such conduct, in violation of

(a), 2, and

using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and aiding and

abetting such conduct, in violation of

(c)(1)(A), 2. We affirm.

The Appellants assert that the trial evidence was insufficient to show that they aided

and abetted the carjacking, robbery, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime

of violence. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government to

determine whether the guilty verdicts are supported by substantial evidence. United

States v. Bailey,

(4th Cir. 2016). Substantial evidence is “evidence that a

‘reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion

of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’”

(quoting United States v. Wilson,

(4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “In determining

whether there is substantial evidence to support a verdict, [this Court] defer[s] to the jury’s

determinations of credibility and resolutions of conflicts in the evidence, as they ‘are within

the sole province of the jury and are not susceptible to judicial review.’” United States v.

Louthian,

(4th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lowe,

(4th Cir. 1995)). In fact, this Court must assume that the jury resolved all

contradictions in testimony in the Government’s favor. United States v. Freitekh,

(4th Cir. 2024). “‘[I]f the evidence supports different, reasonable interpretations,

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4191 Doc: 38 Filed: 01/07/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

the jury decides which interpretation to believe.’” United States v. McLean,

(4th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Burgos,

(4th Cir. 1996) (en

banc)).

We have reviewed the record including the trial testimony and conclude that

substantial evidence supports the convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the government, we conclude that the testimony supports the jury’s finding

that the Appellants had roles in aiding and abetting the carjacking and robbery. And the

evidence shows that the Appellants had advance knowledge that a firearm would be

employed in furtherance of the crimes. See Rosemond v. United States,

(2014) (setting requirement that defendant have advanced knowledge that a firearm

would be used).

We also conclude that there was no plain error in the district court’s admission of

evidence showing the Appellants’ consciousness of guilt. See United States v. Hart,

(4th Cir. 2024) (noting that witness intimidation can be evidence of

consciousness of guilt). And we conclude that the court did not err in applying the

Sentencing Guidelines’ enhancement for obstruction of justice. U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (2018). The court’s finding that the Appellants’ statements to

the witness were clearly intimidating is not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. 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