USCA4 Appeal: 24-4678 Doc: 27 Filed: 10/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4678

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RUSSEL GUYE DADZIE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:24-cr-00051-PTG-1)

Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: October 22, 2025

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Brooke S. Rupert, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Erik S. Siebert, United States Attorney, James Reed Sawyers, Assistant United States Attorney, Jordan Harvey, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4678 Doc: 27 Filed: 10/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

A federal jury convicted Russel Guye Dadzie of two counts of impersonating a

federal officer, in violation of

. The district court sentenced Dadzie to one

day of incarceration and one year of supervised release. On appeal, Dadzie argues that the

evidence was insufficient to prove that he acted as a federal officer, and the district court

erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. We

affirm.

We review de novo the denial of a Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal.

United States v. Robinson,

(4th Cir. 2022). “We will uphold the jury’s

verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the verdict

is supported by substantial evidence.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial

evidence is that 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.”

(internal

quotation marks omitted). “The jury, not the reviewing court, weighs credibility and

resolves conflicts in the evidence; and if the evidence supports different, reasonable

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

Wysinger,

(4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). A

defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions faces “a

heavy burden, and reversal is warranted only where the prosecution’s failure is clear.”

(internal quotation marks omitted).

To obtain a conviction for impersonating a federal officer, the government must

show:

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4678 Doc: 27 Filed: 10/22/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

(1) that the defendant was not an officer or employee of the United States; (2) that the defendant falsely pretended to be an officer or employee of the United States; (3) that the defendant acted as such or demanded or obtained a thing of value; and (4) that the defendant did so knowingly and willfully.

United States v. Ziegler,

(4th Cir. 2021). On appeal, Dadzie challenges

the sufficiency of the evidence as to the third element—whether he acted as a federal

officer.

The “acted as such” element “requires more than a mere representation of being a

federal officer or employee.” United States v. Roe,

(4th Cir. 2010). In

Ziegler, this court found there was sufficient evidence to satisfy the acting as such element

where the defendant repeatedly told police and court officials that they lacked jurisdiction

over him because he was an Assistant United States Attorney, claimed that because of this

position, any charges brought against him would be dropped, and refused to consent to a

blood draw.

. In Ziegler, we held that when viewing the evidence in a light

most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could credit the officer’s impressions

and testimony, and Ziegler’s statements were an attempt to falsely use a position to exert

pressure.

Based on these principles, we discern no reversible error in the district court’s denial

of Dadzie’s Rule 29 motion. At trial, the Government introduced testimony by law

enforcement officers and body camera footage showing that Dadzie claimed he was a

federal officer, resisted showing police officers his driver’s license, and instead showed the

officers his personal identity verification cards that indicated Dadzie’s status as a federal

contractor. Law enforcement officers testified that during these encounters they interpreted

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4678 Doc: 27 Filed: 10/22/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

Dadzie’s conduct as an attempt to exhibit authority. In addition, the Government

introduced Dadzie’s own statements that he showed his personal identity verification cards

rather than his driver’s license as an attempt to deter police officers. Dadzie’s conduct

went beyond a mere representation of being a federal officer or employee.

Accordingly, we affirm Dadzie’s criminal 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