UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4855
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESSIE SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CR-04-453)
Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 16, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce A. Johnson, Jr., BRUCE A. JOHNSON, JR., L.L.C., Bowie,
Maryland, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
Owen M. Kendler, Special Assistant United States Attorney, G. David
Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jessie Scott appeals his conviction by a jury of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty
grams of crack cocaine and more than five kilograms of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). He contends that
the district court erred by denying his motion for judgment of
acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, and that the Government
failed to prove that venue was proper. We affirm.
Scott contends that the evidence did not support his
conspiracy and § 924(c) convictions. We review de novo the
district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion. United States v.
Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). Where, as here, the
motion was based on a claim of insufficient evidence, “[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). We
have reviewed the trial testimony in the joint appendix and are
convinced that the evidence was sufficient to convict Scott. See
United States v. Strickland, 245 F.3d 368, 384-85 (4th Cir. 2001)
(discussing elements of conspiracy offense); United States v.
Wilson, 135 F.3d 291, 305 (4th Cir. 1998) (upholding § 924(c)
conviction based on acts of co-conspirator); see also United
- 2 -
States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e do not
review the credibility of the witnesses and assume the jury
resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the
government.”).
Scott also asserts that the Government failed to prove
that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Virginia. The
trial testimony belies his claim. See United States v. Bowens, 224
F.3d 302, 311 n.4 (4th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that “in a
conspiracy charge, venue is proper for all defendants wherever the
agreement was made or wherever any overt act in furtherance of the
conspiracy transpires”).
Accordingly, we affirm Scott’s convictions. 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 -