UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVIN PHILLIPS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00033-RDB-1)
Submitted: April 20, 2011 Decided: May 17, 2011
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, OFFICE
OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Christopher Mason, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin Phillips was convicted of possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to seventy-two months in
prison. Phillips now appeals, raising two issues. We affirm.
Phillips first contends that the evidence was
insufficient to convict him. A jury’s verdict “must be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). “Substantial evidence is that
evidence which 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. Cardwell,
433 F.3d 378, 390 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). We review
both direct and circumstantial evidence and permit the
“[G]overnment the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the
facts proven to those sought to be established.” United
States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). We do
not review the credibility of witnesses, and we assume the
factfinder resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor
of the Government. United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th
Cir. 2002).
2
We hold that the evidence was sufficient to convict
Phillips. The testimony of Detectives Lind and Lettau,
experienced members of the Baltimore City Police Department,
established that Phillips was the only person in a crowd of ten
standing outside a bar who did not casually walk away upon
seeing Lind’s and Lettau’s police car. Instead, Phillips, who
appeared nervous, began to run in one direction before changing
direction and entering the bar. He grasped the front waistband
of his trousers the entire time; this behavior is typical of
someone who has a gun hidden in his pants. Almost immediately
after Phillips entered the bar, Detective Lettau retrieved a
firearm from a hole in a wall in the area where Detective Linn
had found Phillips crouching. This is a sufficient basis upon
which the jury could have reasonably concluded that Phillips, a
convicted felon, had secreted the gun in the wall.
We further hold that the sentence is reasonable.
Because Phillips was sentenced within his properly calculated
Guidelines range of 63-78 months, we presume the sentence to be
reasonable. See United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th
Cir. 2008). We note that the district court carefully applied
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in imposing sentence. We
3
conclude that Phillips failed to rebut the presumption that his
sentence is reasonable. *
We accordingly affirm. 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
*
Phillips erroneously claims that the district court
imposed a seventy-two-month sentence after stating that a three-
year sentence would be appropriate. The court clearly said that
a seventy-two-month sentence was appropriate. The court
explained that three years of that sentence would run
concurrently with a state sentence and that Phillips would then
have three years remaining to be served on his seventy-two-month
federal sentence.
4