UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4921
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JANET CAHILL DAVENPORT,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00033-jpj-pms-1)
Submitted: January 7, 2011 Decided: January 26, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Bragg, BRAGG LAW, PLC, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Jennifer
R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Janet Cahill Davenport appeals her conviction after a
jury trial and the district court’s denial of her motions for a
judgment of acquittal for possession with intent to distribute
and distribution of hydrocodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (2006). On appeal, Davenport raises the
issues of whether the evidence was sufficient to support her
conviction and whether there was sufficient independent evidence
to corroborate her admissions. We affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for
judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Osborne, 514
F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir. 2008). We are obliged to sustain a
guilty verdict that, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government, is supported by substantial
evidence. Id. Substantial evidence in the context of a
criminal action 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).
A defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge bears a
“heavy burden.” United States v. Hoyte, 51 F.3d 1239, 1245 (4th
Cir. 1995). In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, we do
not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume the jury
resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the
2
Government. United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir.
2002). Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for the
rare case where the Government’s failure is clear. United
States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).
To prevent confessions to crimes never committed and
convictions based upon untrue confessions alone, a conviction
must rest upon firmer ground than the uncorroborated admission
or confession of the accused made after commission of a crime.
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 234 (4th Cir. 2008).
Corroborative evidence does not have to prove the offense beyond
a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance, as long as there
is substantial independent evidence that the offense has been
committed, and the evidence as a whole proves beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Id. at 235.
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the
record and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support
Davenport’s conviction, and her admissions were sufficiently
corroborated by independent evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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