Full text
United States v. Deveon Belk
USCA4 Appeal: 24-4383 Doc: 39 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4383
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEVEON ANTONIO BELK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00655-MGL-1)
Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 29, 2025
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Joshua S. Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4383 Doc: 39 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial, the district court convicted Deveon Antonio Belk of, among
other charges, seven counts of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced Belk to 589
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Belk argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he used an actual firearm to commit several armed
robberies. We affirm.
Belk committed seven armed robberies between November 9, 2020, and November
16, 2020. Video surveillance and testimony of several eyewitness victims, including store
managers and other employees, confirmed that Belk brandished a gun during the robberies.
Belk contends that the Government failed to prove that the weapon he carried during the
robberies was an actual firearm because none of the eyewitnesses could testify for certain
that the gun they saw was a firearm, and a firearms expert testified that he could not
conclusively confirm from surveillance images that Belk brandished a firearm. Belk avers
that, absent such proof, the evidence was insufficient to support his § 924(c) convictions.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence presented in a bench trial, we must
uphold each guilty verdict so long as substantial evidence supports it. United States v.
Landersman, 886 F.3d 393, 406 (4th Cir. 2018). “Substantial evidence means 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). In conducting this review, we construe the evidence in the Government’s favor.
Id. *3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4383 Doc: 39 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 3 of 4
A conviction under § 924(c) requires a showing that a firearm was possessed,
brandished, or discharged during a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). For
purposes of § 924(c), a “firearm” is defined as “any weapon (including a starter gun) which
will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). A conviction under § 924(c) can be sustained solely
on the strength of testimony of lay witnesses unfamiliar with firearms, and no expert
testimony is required. United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141, 149 (4th Cir. 2016); United
States v. Jones, 907 F.2d 456, 460 (4th Cir. 1990). ∗ However, in addition to multiple
witnesses who testified that Belk brandished a black and silver gun at close range during
the robberies, a black and silver gun is visible in surveillance videos, and its appearance is
consistent with a firearm recovered at Belk’s residence bearing his DNA. And while the
firearms expert’s inability to confirm the nature of the gun in the surveillance videos does
not lend support to the conclusion that Belk brandished a firearm, neither does it undermine
the other evidence provided by the Government. The Government presented enough
evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Belk was guilty of the § 924(c)
charges.
∗ Belk contends on appeal that McNeal and Jones do not control here because the defendants in those cases argued that the Government must provide expert testimony to support a § 924(c) conviction, while he contends that the expert testimony provided by the Government in his case does not support the conclusion that he brandished a firearm. This argument is unavailing, however, because Belk puts the sufficiency of lay witness testimony to support a § 924(c) conviction at issue, which is firmly foreclosed by McNeal and Jones.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-4383 Doc: 39 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 4 of 4
Accordingly, we affirm Belk’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.