UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4337

MARSHALL LEWIS KING,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4347

BRUNO LEWIS CRUTCHFIELD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-00-109)

Submitted: April 3, 2002

Decided: April 18, 2002

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Matthew Patrick Geary, Richmond, Virginia; Michael M. Morchower, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellants. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, David

T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

In these consolidated appeals, Marshall Lewis King and Bruno

Lewis Crutchfield appeal their convictions and sentences. The Appellants claim the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions,

the district court erred by denying their motions for downward departure, and the court erred by adjusting the offense level and denying

a request to reduce the offense levels. Finding no reversible error, we

affirm. 

We must affirm the convictions if there is substantial evidence,

when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to support the verdicts. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). In

determining whether the evidence is substantial, this Court inquires

whether there is evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862

(4th Cir. 1996). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, the

Court assumes the fact finder resolved all contradictions in the evidence in the Government’s favor. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d

359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998). The fact finder, not the reviewing court,

weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the

evidence presented. United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th

Cir. 1994). 

To prove conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute, the Government must establish that: (1) an agreement to possess

fifty grams of cocaine with intent to distribute existed between two

2 UNITED STATES v. KING
or more persons; (2) the defendant knew of the conspiracy; and (3)

the defendant knowingly and voluntarily became a part of this conspiracy. Burgos, 94 F.3d at 857; see also United States v. Promise,

255 F.3d 150, 156 (4th Cir. 2001) (drug quantity should be treated as

an element of the offense) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, (Sept. 20,

2001) (No. 01-6398). "[A] conspiracy is clandestine and covert,

thereby frequently resulting in little direct evidence of such an agreement." Burgos, 94 F.3d at 857. A conspiracy may be proven entirely

by circumstantial evidence. "Circumstantial evidence tending to prove

a conspiracy may consist of a defendant’s ‘relationship with other

members of the conspiracy, the length of this association, [the defendant’s] attitude [and] conduct, and the nature of the conspiracy.’" Id.

at 858 (quoting United States v. Collazo, 732 F.2d 1200, 1205 (4th

Cir. 1984)). We find there is sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy convictions. We also find there is sufficient evidence to support King’s conviction for misprision of a felony. 

We do not review the district court’s discretionary decision not to

grant the Appellants’ motions for downward departure. United States

v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230, 238-39 (4th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, the

court did not err by determining that certain departures were not warranted under the law. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 5K2.20 (2000); United States v. Banks, 130 F.3d 621, 625-26 (4th

Cir. 1997); United States v. Fonville, 5 F.3d 781, 783 (4th Cir. 1993).

Finally, we find the district court did not clearly err in its decisions

to adjust King’s offense level for obstruction of justice and to deny

King’s motion to adjust the offense level for his role in the offense.

We further find the court did not err by adjusting the offense level

because the Appellants’ abused their positions of trust. 

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. 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

UNITED STATES v. KING 3