Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

45 F.

3d 428
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished
Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Norma URREA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 94-5324.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 13, 1994.
Decided: January 6, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-93-416)
John C. Kiyonaga, KIYONAGA & KIYONAGA, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, William P. Joyce,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Norma Urrea appeals her conviction, alleging there was insufficient evidence to
support a finding of guilt under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(b) (1988), witness
tampering. Finding no error, we affirm.

Urrea, in exchange for a fee, promised false immigration documents to Mr. and

Mrs. Manuel Talavera. When Urrea delivered the documents, the Talaveras
discovered that the documents contained incorrect birth dates. The Talaveras
returned the documents and asked for their money back. Despite the
Talaverases' repeated requests, Urrea never paid them.

Urrea was arrested for supplying false immigration documents. Following the
arrest, Urrea approached the Talaveras and offered to pay back the money she
owed them if they did not testify at her trial. The Talaveras refused and testified
against Urrea. At the end of Urrea's trial, she was convicted of three counts of
fraud and misuse of immigration documents, and one count of witness

The standard of review for a claim of insufficient evidence is whether, viewing

the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Urrea claims that there was
insufficient evidence offered at trial to establish that she attempted to "corruptly
persuade" a witness from testifying and, therefore, she is not guilty of witness
tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(b). Urrea argues that because she
was paying a debt she already owed and because the Talaveras had previously
approached her about paying the debt, her offer to pay the debt in exchange for
the Talaverases' withholding their testimony, was not "corrupt" within the
meaning of the statute. This argument is clearly without merit. We find that the
Talaverases' testimony concerning the contacts from Urrea in regard to their
testimony at trial and the payment of money if they would not testify falls into
the meaning of "corrupt persuasion." Accordingly, we affirm Urrea's
conviction. 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.