Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0275-01.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. Curtis BOYKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4889.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 9, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 13, 2001.
    L. Dickerson Bragg, Duncan R. St. Clair, III & Associates, P.C., Norfolk, VA, for appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Fernando Groene, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Boykins appeals his conviction of four counts of distribution of cocaine base, commonly known as “crack,” in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999) and resulting 121-month sentence following a bench trial. Boykins argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction because the testimony of the government witness who participated in the transactions was not credible.

Whether a defendant’s case is tried to a jury or the court, we review the verdict to determine “whether ‘there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the government,’ to support the conviction.” United States v. Ismail, 97 F.3d 50, 55 (4th Cir.1996) (quoting Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942)); Johnson v. United States, 271 F.2d 596, 597 (4th Cir.1959). We do not review a witness’s credibility in assessing whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. United States v. Hobbs, 136 F.3d 384, 391 n. 11 (4th Cir.1998).

We have reviewed the evidence and find, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence is sufficient to support Boykins’ conviction. Therefore, we affirm his conviction 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.