UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4205
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SEAN VICTOR STERLING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00179-RDB-7)
Submitted: November 3, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Gordon Tayback, LAW OFFICES OF M. GORDON TAYBACK, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Tonya Kelly Kowitz, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Sterling appeals his convictions of two counts of
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)
(2006). On appeal, Sterling contends that the evidence is
insufficient to demonstrate that he possessed the weapons in
furtherance of a heroin conspiracy. We affirm.
“A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence faces a heavy burden.” United States v. Foster, 507
F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007). We review a sufficiency of the
evidence challenge by determining whether, viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the Government, any rational
trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d
515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005); see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942). We review both direct and circumstantial
evidence, and accord the Government all reasonable inferences
from the facts shown to those sought to be established. United
States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). “[I]f the
evidence supports different, reasonable interpretations, the
jury decides which interpretation to believe[.]” United
States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). We will
uphold the jury’s verdict if substantial evidence supports it,
2
and will reverse only in those rare cases of clear failure by
the prosecution. Foster, 507 F.3d at 244-45.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the
evidence was sufficient to support Sterling’s convictions.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before the
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3