UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4513
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LEROY N. INGRAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00500-HEH)
Submitted: February 9, 2007 Decided: February 26, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter D. Eliades, ELIADES & ELIADES, Hopewell, Virginia, for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leroy N. Ingram appeals his jury conviction and sentence
for possessing with intent to distribute five or more grams of
cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). Ingram
contends the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find him
guilty of either possessing the cocaine base or possessing it with
intent to distribute. We affirm.
We must sustain a jury’s verdict 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 is that which a reasonable finder of fact
could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of
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 witnesses or decide
between differing reasonable interpretations of the evidence.
United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997).
Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare case in
which the prosecution’s failure is clear. United States v.
Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).
Ingram argues there was no credible evidence explaining
how he was able to hide the drugs on his person or supporting the
confession he made to police. Moreover he contends the physical
evidence was insufficient to prove he intended to distribute the
- 2 -
drugs. We have reviewed the record and conclude the evidence was
sufficient to support Ingram’s conviction.
Accordingly, we affirm Ingram’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 -