UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5159
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE DESHAWN MOORE, a/k/a Shawn,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CR-03-70123)
Submitted: May 10, 2006 Decided: June 1, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul G. Beers, GLENN, FELDMANN, DARBY & GOODLATTE, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney,
Edward A. Lustig, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, George Deshawn Moore was convicted of
one count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and
one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000).
On appeal, Moore contends the evidence was insufficient to support
the firearm conviction. He also claims the district court erred in
enhancing his offense level for obstruction of justice. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
We will uphold a jury’s verdict 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).
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) (citation omitted). We review both direct and circumstantial
evidence and permit “the government 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). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do
not review the credibility of witnesses and we assume the jury
resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the
- 2 -
Government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.
1998).
Giving the Government the benefit of all reasonable
inferences, the evidence showed Moore sold drugs from the car James
Moore was driving. The evidence further showed Moore was aware of
the loaded firearms underneath his seat and such firearms were in
close proximity to the crack cocaine, bundle of money and digital
scale. Accordingly, we find there was sufficient evidence to
support the finding Moore possessed the firearms in furtherance of
a drug trafficking crime.
We review a district court’s factual findings supporting
an enhancement for obstruction of justice for clear error. United
States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 560 (4th Cir. 2005). We find the
court’s finding that Moore testified falsely to material matters
and that he could be prosecuted for perjury was sufficient when
considered with the preceding statement by the Government
concerning specific false testimony provided by Moore.
Accordingly, we affirm the 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 -