UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4836
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GAESON LEE MURRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (CR-04-30016)
Submitted: January 29, 2007 Decided: February 21, 2007
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew W. Greene, SMITH & GREENE, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gaeson Lee Murray was convicted by a jury of one count of
conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute
fifty grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine base and three counts of possession
with intent to distribute and distribution of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C); 846
(2000). Murray was sentenced by the district court to 240 months’
imprisonment. We find no error and affirm Murray’s convictions and
sentence.
On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether the
evidence was sufficient to support Murray’s convictions. Murray
filed a pro se supplemental brief, expanding on his counsel’s
argument.* The Government elected not to file a responsive brief.
To determine if there was sufficient evidence to support
a conviction, we consider whether, taking the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Government, substantial evidence supports the
*
Murray also argues that the procedure by which the
Government’s 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) (2000) notice was used for
enhancement purposes violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005). He appears to argue that Booker requires the jury rather
than the district court to make findings regarding the existence of
prior qualifying convictions for sentencing enhancement purposes.
This court, however, has consistently rejected this extension of
Booker.
- 2 -
jury's verdict. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
We review both direct and circumstantial evidence, and permit the
“government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts
proven to those sought to be established.” United States v.
Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). Witness credibility
is solely within the province of the jury, and this court will not
reassess the credibility of testimony. See United States v.
Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).
To prove a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the
Government must establish that the defendant: (1) knowingly;
(2) possessed the controlled substance; (3) with the intent to
distribute it; and, when charged, (4) distributed it. See United
States v. Collazo, 732 F.2d 1200, 1205 (4th Cir. 1984). Moreover,
to prove conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to
distribute a controlled substance, the Government must establish
that: (1) two or more persons agreed to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute the substance; (2) the defendant knew of
the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily
became part of the conspiracy. See United States v. Burgos, 94
F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). A defendant may be
convicted of conspiracy without knowing all the conspiracy’s
details, so long as he joins the conspiracy understanding its
unlawful nature and willfully joins in the plan on at least one
occasion. Id. at 858. Construing the evidence admitted at trial
- 3 -
in the light most favorable to the Government, we find it
sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Murray’s convictions and sentence.
We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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 requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 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 -