UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4396
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DEJUAN ANDERKO WATKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-106-FO)
Submitted: December 17, 2003 Decided: February 2, 2004
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dejuan Anderko Watkins appeals his conviction, after a
jury trial, for attempting to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000).
On appeal, Watkins contends that his uncorroborated
confession is insufficient to support his conviction. After a
careful review of the record, we conclude that there was
substantial independent evidence to corroborate Watkins’
confession, and the evidence as a whole proved Watkins’ guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147,
156 (1954).
Watkins also contends that there was insufficient
evidence to support his conviction because he did not take a
substantial step towards the completion of the offense. We
disagree. The record clearly establishes that Watkins took several
substantial steps toward the completion of the crime. See United
States v. Neal, 78 F.3d 901, 906 (4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the Government, and assuming that the jury resolved
all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government, we
conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to
sustain Watkins’ conviction. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942); United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir.
2002); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996).
- 2 -
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
- 3 -