UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4825
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LEROY AUGUSTUS LANE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (6:06-cr-00992-GRA)
Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kirsten E. Small, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, E. Jean
Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leroy Augustus Lane appeals his conviction by a jury of
one count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)
(2000). On appeal, Lane asserts that the evidence was insufficient
to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of Lane’s
motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence.
United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001). The
verdict must be sustained if there is substantial evidence to
support it, taking the view most favorable to the Government.
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). In evaluating the sufficiency of the
evidence, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses, and we
assume that the jury resolved contradictions in testimony in favor
of the Government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th
Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds as recognized in United
States v. Strassini, 59 Fed. Appx. 550, 552 (4th Cir. 2003).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record
and conclude that the evidence was sufficient. Lane does not
dispute that the robber was driving his vehicle. In addition, one
witness positively identified Lane, and another testified that Lane
- 2 -
confessed to him. While Lane challenges the credibility of these
witnesses, credibility determinations are jury functions, and
absent extraordinary circumstances not present here, we will not
disturb them. See Columbus-Am. Discovery Group v. Atl. Mut. Ins.
Co., 56 F.3d 556, 567 (4th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, we affirm Lane’s conviction. 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 -