UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4353
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CONSUEGO SHINE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
Chief District Judge. (CR-02-161)
Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: January 30, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Bess Obiorah, LAW OFFICES OF DANIELLE BESS OBIORAH, P.C.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, C. Nicks Williams, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Consuego Shine was convicted by a jury for aiding and
abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000),
and aiding and abetting the use and carry of a firearm during and
in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 924(c) (2000). She received a 138-month sentence. On
appeal, Shine claims the district court erred when it denied her
motion for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of
evidence to support the firearm conviction. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s decision to deny
a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v.
Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001). If the motion was
based on insufficiency of the evidence, the verdict 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 the
witnesses and assumes that the jury resolved contradictions in
- 2 -
testimony in favor of the government. United States v. Romer, 148
F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998).
After thoroughly reviewing the parties’ arguments and the
materials submitted in the joint appendix, we find sufficient
evidence to support the jury’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm
Shine’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 -