UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4138
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWARD VASHON BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-02-47)
Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: February 2, 2004
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr.,
United States Attorney, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States
Attorney, Thomas E. Booth, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward Vashon Bryant appeals his jury conviction for
being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to ten years in prison.
On appeal, Bryant argues that there was insufficient
evidence that the firearm he possessed had traveled in interstate
commerce. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, “[t]he verdict of
a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking
the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.”
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). “Substantial
evidence,” in the context of a criminal action, is that evidence a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient
to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. See United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.
2003). A defendant challenging the sufficiency of evidence to
support his conviction “bears a heavy burden.” United States v.
Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).
We conclude that, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the Government, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial
to establish the firearm traveled in interstate commerce. We
therefore affirm Bryant’s conviction and sentence. Bryant’s motion
to file a supplemental brief is denied. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -