UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4202
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVEY LAMONT WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00193-5-MU)
Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: January 29, 2007
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kimberly Y. Best, THE BEST LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Davey Lamont Walker appeals his jury conviction and
sentence on a charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute at least 500 grams but less than five kilograms of
cocaine and at least five grams but less than fifty grams of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) (2000).
The district court sentenced Walker to 78 months’ imprisonment,*
three years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay a $100
statutory assessment. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming insufficiency
of the evidence to support the conviction such that the district
court erred in denying Walker’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 59 motion, but
concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
Walker was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but
has not done so.
We have reviewed Walker’s sufficiency of the evidence
claim based on the record before us and conclude that the claim is
without merit. In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting a criminal conviction on direct review, “The verdict of
the jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking
*
The probation officer calculated a sentencing guideline range
of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment founded on a base offense level
of thirty-two and a criminal history category of III. After
careful consideration of the facts, evidence, and recommendations
in the presentence investigation report, as well as Walker’s
arguments and the statutory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), the district court adjusted
Walker’s offense level down to twenty-six, based upon the actual
findings of drug quantity as determined by the jury beyond a
reasonable doubt, with an attendant revised guideline range of
seventy-eight to eighty-seven months’ imprisonment.
- 2 -
the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser
v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Substantial evidence is
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. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,
862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). We consider circumstantial and
direct evidence, and allow the Government the benefit of all
reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be
established. Id. at 858; United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018,
1021 (4th Cir. 1982). In resolving issues of substantial evidence,
we do not weigh evidence or review witness credibility. United
States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002); Burgos, 886
F.2d at 863. Rather, it is the role of the jury to judge the
credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in testimony, and weigh
the evidence. United States v. Manbeck, 744 F.2d 360, 392 (4th
Cir. 1984).
Our review of the record discloses ample evidence
presented at Walker’s trial to support the jury’s finding that
Walker conspired with others to distribute cocaine and cocaine
base. Dwight Hunter testified that Walker was his “drug partner,”
and that he was involved with Walker in the dealing of cocaine and
cocaine base for three and a half or four years. The testimony of
Marlon Scott, Eric Harris, and Damond Nelson further established
Walker’s actions in trafficking significant amounts of cocaine and
cocaine base.
- 3 -
As evidenced by the finding of guilt, the jury resolved
any conflicts in testimony in favor of the prosecution, determined
the government’s witnesses to be sufficiently credible to support
their verdict of guilty, and otherwise found sufficient
circumstantial and direct evidence of guilt. We find the evidence
to be adequate and sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion of
Walker’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no merit to
Walker’s claim of insufficiency of the evidence, and find no error
in the district court’s denial of Walker’s Rule 59 motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly examined
the entire record for any potentially meritorious issues; we find
none. There were no irregularities in the pre-trial or trial
process, and we find that Walker was sentenced upon a proper
application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and
consistent with statutory and constitutional law. Accordingly, we
affirm Walker’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client request 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 the client. 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 -