UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4077
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JASON EMMANUEL WILKERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (CR-04-92)
Submitted: September 28, 2005 Decided: November 1, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Larry M. Dash,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Research and
Writing Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Lisa Rae
McKeel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jason Emmanuel Wilkerson was convicted by a jury of
possession of five or more grams of cocaine base with intent to
distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000).
Wilkerson was sentenced according to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) (2000),
receiving the statutory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment. In
his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), counsel for Wilkerson asserts that the district court erred
in denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motions for judgment of
acquittal after the conclusion of the Government’s case-in-chief
and following the announcement of the jury’s verdict. Wilkerson
was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, but
he failed to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion
de novo. United States v. Ryan-Webster, 353 F.3d 353, 359 (4th
Cir. 2003). Where, as here, the motion was based on an
insufficient evidence claim, “[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). “‘[S]ubstantial evidence,’ in the
context of a criminal action, [is] 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.
- 2 -
2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.
1996) (en banc)). Furthermore, witness credibility is within the
sole province of the jury, and this court will not reassess the
credibility of testimony. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56,
60 (4th Cir. 1989). Therefore, a defendant challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence “bears a heavy burden.” United
States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).
Here, the evidence at trial showed that Wilkerson
possessed 9.3 grams of crack cocaine, along with scales, and he was
wearing latex gloves at the time of his arrest. An expert witness
testified that these circumstances, taken together, suggested an
intent to distribute the drugs. On this record, we conclude that
there was evidence to support Wilkerson’s conviction.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the
client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -