UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4236
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY LEE JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-238)
Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 7, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer M. Newman, LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER M. NEWMAN, P.C.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States
Attorney, Brian Whisler, Michael C. Wallace, Sr., Assistant United
States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tony Lee Jones appeals his convictions for three counts
of distribution of cocaine base with a resulting ninety-eight month
sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Jones’s sole contention on appeal is that insufficient
evidence supported his convictions. To determine if there was
sufficient evidence to support a conviction, this court considers
whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict.
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v.
Wills, 346 F.3d 476, 495 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct.
2906 (2004). Substantial evidence is defined as “that evidence
which ‘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. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333
(4th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-
63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). The court reviews both direct and
circumstantial evidence and permits “the [G]overnment the benefit
of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought
to be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021
(4th Cir. 1982). Witness credibility is within the sole province
of the jury, and the court will not reassess the credibility of
testimony. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.
1989).
- 2 -
We have fully reviewed the materials submitted by the
parties and find that sufficient evidence existed to support the
convictions. Accordingly, we affirm. 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 -