UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4753
DARYL ERSKINE JENKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-99-121-MJP)
Submitted: August 31, 2000
Decided: September 22, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Creighton B. Coleman, MCCUTCHEN, BLANTON, RHODES &
JOHNSON, Winnsboro, South Carolina, for Appellant. Cameron
Glenn Chandler, Assistant United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain
Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Colum-
bia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Daryl Erskine Jenkins appeals his jury conviction and resulting
sentence for possession of cocaine base with the intent to distribute,
in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1999). We affirm.
Jenkins' attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the sole issue of whether the
district court erred in denying Jenkins' Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for
judgment of acquittal. Jenkins has filed a pro se supplemental brief
raising three issues that were not asserted in the district court.
When a motion for judgment of acquittal is based on the claim that
the evidence was insufficient, this Court reviews the denial under the
sufficiency of the evidence standard. See United States v. Romer, 148
F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1141 (1999). In
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court considers
whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the gov-
ernment, there was evidence such "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." United States v. Bur-
gos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996). We find the evidence was suffi-
cient for a jury to find Jenkins possessed the crack cocaine for
distribution.
Our review of the claims raised in Jenkins' pro se supplemental
brief that his stop and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, that the
district court improperly admitted drugs into evidence, and that he
was improperly sentenced, reveals no plain error. See United States
v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-37 (1993) (limiting court of appeals'
review of claims raised for first time on appeal for plain error).
Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for potential
error and has found none. Therefore, we affirm Jenkins' sentence and
2
conviction. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writ-
ing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but coun-
sel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3