UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4679
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CYNTHIA SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-02-1358)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 21, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Janis Richardson Hall, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cynthia Scott appeals her conviction for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and her resulting
sentence. Counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967) brief and Scott has filed a supplemental brief. The
Government elected not to file a reply brief. The only issue
raised by counsel is whether the district court erred in denying
Scott’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal
arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the
conviction. We affirm.
This court reviews the denial of a Rule 29 motion de
novo. 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). This court “ha[s] 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.’” Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693 (quoting
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc)). The court “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
- 2 -
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). We have reviewed the record and find
that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Scott filed a supplemental brief arguing that she should
not have received a harsh sentence, that she lied in her statement
to police, and that one of the witnesses implicating her was not
credible. We find these claims without merit. We deny Scott’s
motion to remand for resentencing and grant the Government’s motion
to dismiss the motion to remand. In accordance with Anders, we
have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Scott’s conviction and
sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Scott, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If Scott requests that a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that such a 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 Scott. 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 -