Case ID: f-appx_19/html/0123-01.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. Antonio Oneil CHRISTIAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4354.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 20, 2001.
    Decided Sept. 26, 2001.
    Theodore J. Korth, Nelson & Korth, P.L.C., Charlottesville, VA, for appellant. Ruth E. Plagenhoef, United States Attorney, Bruce A. Pagel, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, VA, for appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Antonio Oneil Christian appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). Christian asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

After a thorough review of the trial transcript, we find that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136-37 (4th Cir.2001) (stating standard of review for denial of motion for judgment of acquittal based upon sufficiency of evidence and discussing constructive possession); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 873 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc) (discussing elements of offense). We therefore find that the district court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal.

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.