Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-4217
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00082-JAG-1)
Submitted:
FLOYD,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Lenora
Banks-Davis
was
convicted
following
jury
One),
and
unauthorized
use
of
an
access
device,
in
On appeal, counsel
that
defraud.
Banks-Davis
acted
with
the
requisite
intent
to
review
de
novo
supporting a conviction.
137 (4th Cir. 2013).
the
We affirm.
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
to
the
determinations
substantial
finder
of
of
government
credibility,
evidence
fact
and
could
that
accept
accepting
the
verdict
is,
evidence
as
adequate
the
is
that
and
factfinders
supported
a
by
reasonable
sufficient
to
A defendant bringing
sufficiency
challenge
must
overcome
heavy
burden,
and
F.3d 405, 419 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 179 (2012).
As to Count One, bank fraud, the statute under which
Banks-Davis
. . .
was
convicted
scheme
or
proscribes
artifice:
(1)
knowingly
to
defraud
execut[ing]
a
financial
bank
fraud
by
violating
either
subsection.
United
to
defraud
clause
of
Section
1344(1)
is
The
to
be
another.
Id.
(internal
alterations omitted).
an
access
defendant
device,
knowingly
transactions,
with
quotation
marks,
citations,
and
[one]
government
with
or
must
intent
more
3
establish
that
the
to
defraud
effect[ed]
access
devices
issued
to
18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(5).
Thus, both the bank fraud statute and the unauthorized use of an
access device statute have as an element the specific intent to
defraud.
[A]
conviction
under
1344
is
not
supportable
by
intended
victim.
Brandon,
298
F.3d
at
311
(internal
the
intent
element
with
proof
that
financial
the
government
challenges
failed
to
both
convictions
establish
the
record,
however,
we
conclude
that
she
by
arguing
lacked
the
the
evidence
to
support
her
convictions.
Banks-Davis
obtained
credit card in the victims name under the pretense that she
4
Banks-Davis
incurred
nearly
$11,000
in
unpaid
In
charges
risk
of
loss.
Moreover,
evidence
presented
at
trial
pro
se
has
filed
brief,
in
a
which
motion
she
to
raises
submit
additional
and
conclude
that
they
lack
merit.
Accordingly,
we