UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4425
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY MORRIS JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00506-JCC)
Submitted: October 20, 2006 Decided: November 28, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles J. Swedish, SLOAN & SWEDISH, Vienna, Virginia, for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Dennis M.
Fitzpatrick, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Rodney Morris Jones of possession with
intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). The district
court sentenced Jones to concurrent 262-month sentences. Jones
appealed, and challenges only his conspiracy conviction, alleging
the evidence was insufficient to support it. Jones contends the
Government failed to establish he agreed to participate in a crack
cocaine distribution conspiracy from March 8, 2005 to April 29,
2005, as alleged in the indictment.
“[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 support a
conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc). We do not review the credibility of the witnesses and
assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony
- 2 -
in favor of the Government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359,
364 (4th Cir. 1998).
“To prove a conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the
government must prove (1) an agreement between two or more persons
to engage in conduct that violates a federal drug law, (2) the
defendant’s knowledge of the conspiracy, and (3) the defendant’s
knowing and voluntary participation in the conspiracy.” United
States v. Strickland, 245 F.3d 368, 385 (4th Cir. 2001). After
reviewing the evidence adduced at trial, we conclude that when the
evidence is construed in the light most favorable to the
Government, it is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ conspiracy conviction. 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 -