UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4482
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAWN ELIELY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:04-cr-00078)
Submitted: September 29, 2006 Decided: October 31, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James S. Ellenson, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. ELLENSON, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney,
Scott W. Putney, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Shawn Eliely on one count of conspiracy
to cause another person to make false statements to a federal
firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000), and three
counts of causing another to make a false statement to a federal
firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(a)(1)(A)
(2000). The district court sentenced Eliely to concurrent terms of
fifty months’ imprisonment on all counts. Eliely appealed and
asserts insufficient evidence supported his convictions.*
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064,
1067 (4th Cir. 1997). “[A]n appellate court’s reversal of a
conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence should be confined
to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United
States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984). A jury’s
verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence
in the record to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942). In determining whether the evidence in the record
is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government and inquire whether there is evidence that a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient
to establish a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United
States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In
*
Eliely does not challenge his sentence on appeal.
- 2 -
evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the
credibility of the witnesses and assume that the jury resolved all
contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. United
States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998).
Nothwithstanding these principles, Eliely urges us to
review the credibility of a trial witness, Demetrial Stewart. At
the sentencing hearing, Stewart gave testimony that conflicted with
her testimony before the grand jury; consequently, the district
court found Stewart’s testimony concerning a sentencing enhancement
for possession of firearms in connection with another felony lacked
credibility, and it sustained Eliely’s objection to the
enhancement. On this basis, Eliely contends that Stewart wholly
lacked credibility. Because Stewart was an important witness to
the prosecution, Eliely’s argument follows, her lack of credibility
renders the evidence against him insufficient to sustain the
convictions.
The guilty verdicts indicate that the jury as factfinder
found Stewart’s testimony credible. While the district court found
Stewart’s conflicting and uncorroborated testimony did not support
one sentencing enhancement, the court also found Stewart’s
testimony sufficiently credible to support a separate enhancement
for obstruction of justice. Nothing in the record indicates
Stewart’s testimony at trial lacked credibility, and we decline to
- 3 -
upset the jury’s obvious finding that Stewart was a credible
witness.
After reviewing the trial transcript, we conclude
substantial evidence supports Eliely’s jury convictions; therefore,
we affirm the 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
- 4 -