UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4379
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
REGINALD WAYNE MERCER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00253-NCT)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 15, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael A.
DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Wayne Mercer appeals his conviction following a
jury trial for knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). Mercer
was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Mercer argues there was insufficient evidence
to support his conviction. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge,
“[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).
“Substantial evidence,” in the context of a criminal action, is
that “evidence 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. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,
862 (4th Cir. 1996). A defendant challenging the sufficiency of
the evidence to support his conviction “bears a heavy burden.”
United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).
We reject Mercer’s assertion that his conviction was
legally insufficient because the jury did not believe his testimony
and instead credited that of the Government’s witnesses. Witness
credibility is solely within the province of the jury and will not
be reassessed on appeal. See United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d
56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). As such, this argument is plainly
insufficient to meet the heavy burden demanded of a criminal
- 2 -
defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence underlying
his criminal conviction. Beidler, 110 F.3d at 1067. Therefore, we
affirm Mercer’s conviction 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 -