UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4085
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEVIN JEROME TURPIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-01-261)
Submitted: June 25, 2004 Decided: July 29, 2004
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR, VICTOR & HELGOE, L.L.P., Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States
Attorney, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney,
Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Jerome Turpin appeals his jury trial conviction for
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more
than 50 grams of cocaine base, 5 kilograms of cocaine powder, and
100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).
Turpin contends that the evidence presented at trial is
insufficient to sustain his conviction. The 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). “[S]ubstantial evidence is
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.” United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,
862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In evaluating the sufficiency of
the evidence, this court does not review the credibility of
witnesses and assumes the jury resolved all contradictions in the
testimony for the government. United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302,
313 (4th Cir. 2002). After careful review of the record in the
light most favorable to the government, and assuming the jury
resolved all contradictions in the testimony for the government, we
conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to
sustain Turpin’s conviction. Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80; Sun, 278
F.3d at 313; Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862 (setting forth the elements of
conspiracy).
- 2 -
Turpin contends that the district court erred by failing
to reduce his sentence pursuant to the Safety Valve provision of
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 (2000). In general, this
court reviews a district court’s factual findings for clear error
and its application of the sentencing guidelines de novo. United
States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). In
conducting this review, this court gives due regard to the district
court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses. 18
U.S.C. § 3742(e) (2000). To qualify for sentencing under the
safety valve provision, a defendant must meet all five criteria set
out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)-(5) (2000), which are incorporated
into USSG § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5). A defendant who meets these criteria
may be sentenced within the guideline range without regard to any
statutory minimum sentence. Id. Here, the parties agree that
Turpin meets the first four criteria. However, after careful
review of the record, we agree with the district court that Turpin
did not truthfully disclose all he knew about the conspiracy.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s determination that
Turpin did not meet the fifth criterion of § 5C1.2(a), and thus
does not qualify for a sentence reduction below the statutory
minimum. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d at 217; USSG § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5).
We decline to address Turpin’s remaining sentencing
claims, as Turpin is subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum. USSG
§ 5G1.1(b); United States v. Pillow, 191 F.3d 403, 404 (4th Cir.
- 3 -
1999). We therefore affirm Turpin’s conviction and sentence. 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
- 4 -