Case ID: f-appx_5/html/0211-01.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. Flavio LUVIANO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4529.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2001.
    Decided March 6, 2001.
    Haywood E. White, III, Lineberry, White, Heame & Ballantine, L.L.P., Wilmington, NC, for appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Flavio Luviano appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). We affirm.

Luviano contends that the district court erred in denying his motion under Fed. R.Crim.P. 29 for acquittal based on insufficient evidence. When reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, “we must determine whether there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to support the verdict.” United States v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 238 (4th Cir.1998). “[S]ubstantial 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). When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses nor resolve any conflicts in the evidence presented at trial. Id.

We have reviewed the record and briefs and find sufficient evidence to support Luviano’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm Luviano’s 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.