United States v. Christopher M. Oros, United States of America v. One Male Juvenile, 72 F.3d 128, 4th Cir. (1995)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Christopher M. Oros, United States of America v. One Male Juvenile, 72 F.3d 128, 4th Cir. (1995)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs72 F.
3d 128
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished
dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law
of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the
Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Christopher M. OROS, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ONE MALE JUVENILE, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 95-5073, 95-5074.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 31, 1995.
Decided Dec. 11, 1995.
Russell L. McLean, III, Waynesville, Virginia, for Appellants. Mark T.
Calloway, United States Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their conviction
of ginseng poaching in violation of 36 C.F.R. section 2.1. We have reviewed
the record to determine if there was substantial evidence such that a reasonable
trier of fact could have found the Appellants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Samad, 754 F.2d 1091, 1096 (4th Cir.1984) (quoting Glasser
v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942)); United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d
1018, 1021 (4th Cir.1982). We review the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Government, and allow the Government all reasonable inferences from
the facts established. Holloway v. McElroy, 632 F.2d 605, 641 (5th Cir.1980),
cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1028 (1981); United States v. George, 568 F.2d 1064,
1069 (4th Cir.1978).
2
On August 27, near the beginning of ginseng poaching season, the Appellants
arrived at the Great Smokey Mountains National Park very early in the
morning, and left their truck well before dawn. They were found three miles
from their truck in a rarely-visited area, they had no camping supplies and were
six miles away from any campsite. It took them six and a half hours to traverse
this distance, despite the fact that they took no "sitdown" breaks. They were
found about a half a mile from where a park ranger had observed fresh digging,
and they had fresh dirt on their hands and knees. The area in which the digging
had occurred was ideal for ginseng growth, and the entire area was known for
ginseng poaching. The Appellants carried sticks that had been modified for
ginseng digging, and were useful only for that purpose. Finally, approximately
six feet from the Appellants, the park ranger found two bags full of freshly dug
ginseng roots lying on the ground. We find that these facts, taken with their
logical inferences, present substantial evidence such that a reasonable trier of
fact could find the Appellants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly,
we affirm their convictions.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
