Case ID: f-appx_164/html/0388-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Consuego SHINE, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4353.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 26, 2006.
    Decided: Jan. 30, 2006.
    Danielle Bess Obiorah, Law Offices of Danielle Bess Obiorah, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, C. Nicks Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Consuego Shine was convicted by a jury for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000), and aiding and abetting the use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (2000). She received a 138-month sentence. On appeal, Shine claims the district court erred when it denied her motion for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of evidence to support the firearm conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

This court reviews the district court’s decision to deny a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir.2001). If the motion was based on insufficiency of the evidence, the 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, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). “[Sjubstantial 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.” United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does not review the credibility of the witnesses and assumes that the jury resolved contradictions in testimony in favor of the government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.1998).

After thoroughly reviewing the parties’ arguments and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, we find sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm Shine’s convictions and sentence. 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