UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4734
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MORGAN GREGORY ROBINSON, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00343-JAB; 1:05-cr-00344-JAB)
Submitted: February 28, 2007 Decided: March 9, 2007
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter L. Jones, JONES, FREE & KNIGHT, PLLC, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Morgan Gregory Robinson, Jr., was convicted after a jury
trial of two counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(a) (2000), and was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment.
Robinson timely appealed and asserts that the trial court erred in
denying his motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 29. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s decision to deny a
Rule 29 motion de novo. United States v. Ryan-Webster, 353 F.3d
353, 359 (4th Cir. 2003). Where, as here, the motion is based on
an allegation of insufficient evidence, the verdict must be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the government, to support it. See Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). “[S]ubstantial 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). The court reviews both direct and
circumstantial evidence and permits 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 within the sole province
of the jury, and the court will not reassess the credibility of
testimony. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.
- 2 -
1989). We have reviewed the evidence presented at trial and find
that the jury’s verdict is sufficiently supported by the evidence.
We therefore affirm Robinson’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 -