UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENARD EDWARD CARRINGTON, a/k/a Bird,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00160-JRS-1)
Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Taylor B. Stone, BREMNER JANUS & STONE, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Denard Edward Carrington appeals his conviction
following a jury trial for possessing firearms in furtherance of
a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2006). On appeal, Carrington attacks the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting his conviction. Specifically, Carrington
contends that the Government failed to offer sufficient evidence
to establish a nexus between the guns found at his residence and
the furtherance of his drug activities. We affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s denial of a Fed.
R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal. United
States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010). A defendant
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence “bears a heavy
burden.” United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th
Cir. 1997). A jury verdict must be sustained “if, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the
verdict is supported by substantial evidence.” United States v.
Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006). Substantial 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). “[T]he jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the
credibility of the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the
evidence presented.” Beidler, 110 F.3d at 1067 (internal
2
quotation marks omitted). “Reversal for insufficient evidence
is reserved for the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is
clear.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
To convict Carrington of violating § 924(c), the
Government was required to prove that Carrington: (i) committed
a drug trafficking crime; and (ii) possessed a firearm in
furtherance of that crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Whether a
firearm furthered, advanced, or helped forward a drug
trafficking crime is a question of fact, however. United States
v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002). Many factors might
lead a reasonable trier of fact to find a connection between a
defendant’s possession of a weapon and a drug trafficking crime.
Id. These include: “the type of drug activity that is being
conducted, accessibility of the firearm, the type of weapon,
whether the weapon is stolen, the status of the possession
(legitimate or illegal), whether the gun is loaded, proximity to
drugs or drug profits, and the time and circumstances under
which the gun is found.” Id. Our review of the record leads us
to conclude that the Government presented sufficient evidence
from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt
that Carrington was guilty of possessing each of the firearms in
question in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Accordingly, we affirm Carrington’s conviction. We
remand the case to the district court for correction of a
3
clerical error in the “nature of offense” for Count Three on
page one of the 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 AND REMANDED
4