Case ID: f-appx_184/html/0340-01.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. Billy Louis CLARKE, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4866.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 19, 2006.
    Decided: June 8, 2006.
    Michael Morchower, Morchower, Luxton & Whaley, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Charles E. James, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Billy Louis Clarke appeals his conviction of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine powder, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(B)(ii), 846 (2000), and one count of attempted possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine powder, in violation of § 841(b)(l)(B)(ii) (2000).

On appeal, Clarke’s only claim is that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s conviction. In reviewing 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 defined ‘substantial evidence’ as ‘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. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir.2005) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc)). We “must consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). This court “may not weigh the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir.1997). With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.