Case ID: f-appx_55/html/0668-01.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. Tyrone JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4547.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 29, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 10, 2003.
    Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Tyrone Jackson appeals his convictions for armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)(d) (2001), brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(iii) (2001), and aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000), and his subsequent 144 month sentence. On appeal, Jackson asserts the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, we must sustain the verdict if the record contains “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). Applying this standard, we give due regard to the fact finder’s prerogative to resolve questions of credibility. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir.1996). With these principles in mind, we conclude the Government presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find Jackson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges against him.

Accordingly, we affirm Jackson’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.