UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4572
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY ZAQUECE WHEELER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00323-WLO)
Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall S.
Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Zaquece Wheeler was convicted by a jury of five
counts of distribution of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months in prison. On
appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his convictions and the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
We will not reverse a conviction on the grounds of
insufficiency of the evidence unless the prosecution has clearly
failed to present evidence supporting a conclusion of the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.
Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, Wheeler contends
that the testimony of two eye witnesses that he distributed crack
on five separate occasions was insufficient to support his
convictions in the absence of fingerprints and further
corroboration, especially given the background of a cooperating
witness. However, the uncorroborated testimony of one witness may
be sufficient to sustain a conviction. Unites States v. Wilson,
115 F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997). In addition, while Wheeler
questions the reliability of the witnesses’ testimony, we will not
reexamine credibility findings. See United States v. Saunders, 886
F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we find that sufficient
evidence supported Wheeler’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
With regard to Wheeler’s sentence, the district court
lacked the authority to sentence Wheeler below the statutory
- 2 -
mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d
565, 568-69 (4th Cir. 2006). Thus, Wheeler’s sentence, which was
within the presumptively reasonable guideline range, was
reasonable. See United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm Wheeler’s convictions 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 -