Case ID: f-appx_169/html/0802-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. James Allen FERGUS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4748.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 23, 2006.
    Decided: March 6, 2006.
    Robert B. Rigney, Protogyrou & Rigney, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. ■ Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Vince Gambale, Sherrie S. Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

James Allen Fergus appeals his conviction by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute less than five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). He contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29. We affirm.

Fergus contends that the evidence did not support his conspiracy conviction. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir.2005). Where, as here, the motion was based on a claim of insufficient evidence, “[t]he verdict of a jury 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). We have reviewed the trial testimony in the joint appendix and are convinced that the evidence was sufficient to convict Fergus. See United States v. Strickland, 245 F.3d 368, 384-85 (4th Cir.2001) (discussing elements of offense); United States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 390 (4th Cir.2005) (“It is no defense to a conspiracy charge that one’s role in the conspiracy is minor.”).

Accordingly, we affirm Fergus’ conviction. 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