UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4726
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RANDY D. GLENN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-02-1135)
Submitted: August 18, 2004 Decided: August 31, 2004
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Falkner Wilkes, CRAVEN & WILKES, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, E. Jean
Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Randy D. Glenn appeals his convictions after a jury trial
of one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a), (d) (2000), and one count of using a firearm in relation
to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
(2000). We affirm.
Glenn argues that the district court erred in denying his
motions for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was
insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. A jury’s verdict must
be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record
to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial,
this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government, and inquires whether there 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 the witnesses and assumes
that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor
of the government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th
Cir. 1998).
Glenn does not contest the fact that the robbery in
question occurred, or the particulars of the crime. He argues
- 2 -
that, because there was no physical evidence seized to connect him
to the crime and no witness identified him as the robber, the
evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Our review of
the record convinces us that the evidence, though circumstantial,
clearly supported the jury’s verdict.
Accordingly, we affirm Glenn’s convictions 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
- 3 -