UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4866
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BILLY LOUIS CLARKE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-05-23)
Submitted: May 19, 2006 Decided: June 8, 2006
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Morchower, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Charles E.
James, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Billy Louis Clarke appeals his conviction of one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more
of cocaine powder, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(B)(ii), 846 (2000), and one count of attempted possession
with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine powder, in
violation of § 841(b)(1)(B)(ii) (2000).
On appeal, Clarke’s only claim is that the evidence was
insufficient to support the jury’s conviction. In reviewing 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 defined ‘substantial
evidence’ as ‘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.
Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). We “must
consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow 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). This court “may not
weigh the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses.”
United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). With
- 2 -
these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record and conclude
that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s
verdict.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 -