UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4947
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ARCILA-PEDRAZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00035-WLO)
Submitted: August 29, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Arcila-Pedraza appeals from his conviction and
188-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine and crack cocaine, possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine and crack cocaine, and maintaining a
dwelling to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and crack
cocaine. Counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising sufficiency of the
evidence to support the convictions, but stating that, in his
opinion, there are no meritorious issues for review. The Defendant
filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that this is a case of
mistaken identification, there was insufficient evidence to support
the convictions, and that he did not possess a firearm attributed
for sentencing purposes. The Government has declined to file a
brief.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064,
1067 (4th Cir. 1997). “[A]n appellate court’s reversal of a
conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence should be confined
to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United
States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984) (internal
quotation marks omitted). A jury’s verdict must be upheld on
appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support
it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). In
2
determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial, this
court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, and inquires whether there 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, this court does not
review the credibility of the witnesses and assumes that the jury
resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the
Government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.
1998).
At trial, several officers participating in the drug
conspiracy investigation and surveillance identified the Defendant
as the person who dug up a container out of the yard, took out a
package and placed it in a car, which was later used in a drug
transaction. A search of the yard yielded methamphetamine buried
in the ground. The Defendant was also seen using a firearm. His
co-defendant testified that the Defendant was his supplier for
several methamphetamine transactions with undercover officers.
While the Defendant testified that he was not involved in any drug
transactions and did not possess a firearm, we do not review the
credibility of witnesses and assume the jury resolved all
contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government. See
3
Romer, 148 F.3d at 364. We therefore conclude that there was
sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Arcila-Pedraza’s convictions and
sentence. 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 in 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