UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4100

WILLIAM DAVID LONG,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville.

Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.

(CR-99-70063)

Submitted: June 20, 2000

Decided: July 24, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas E. Wray, Salem, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch,

Jr., United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William David Long appeals from his conviction and sentence for

conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 2000). On

appeal, Long challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the

conviction.

In the face of such a challenge, a jury verdict must be upheld if

there exists substantial evidence to support the verdict, viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the government. See Glasser

v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Substantial 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).

In resolving issues of substantial evidence, this court does not

weigh evidence or review witness credibility, see United States v.

Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989), rather, the credibility of

witnesses is within the sole province of the jury. See United States v.

Lamarr, 75 F.3d 964, 973 (4th Cir. 1996); see also United States v.

Manbeck, 744 F.2d 360, 392 (4th Cir. 1984) (role of jury to judge

credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in testimony, and weigh the

evidence). This court may reverse a jury verdict only when there is

a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusions

reached by the jury, see Sherrill White Constr., Inc. v. South Carolina

Nat'l Bank, 713 F.2d 1047, 1050 (4th Cir. 1983), and this court has

previously held that even the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to sustain a conviction. See United States v.

Burns, 990 F.2d 1426, 1439 (4th Cir. 1993).

Long claims that the primary evidence to support his conviction for

conspiracy was suspect because it came from Marvin Lee Price, an

indicted and convicted drug conspirator. He asserts further that evidence from Lisa Duggins also was suspect because she was an admitted cocaine addict who was seeking assistance from the government

in her pending federal criminal charges. Long also claims that the

 2
government was unable to prove all the elements of conspiracy,

because he testified that he did not know the substance at issue was

cocaine, but believed it to be a hormone stimulant which he fed to his

chickens so they would be better fighters.

At trial, Price, one of the two other co-conspirators charged in the

indictment, testified that he had an agreement with Long whereby

Price would front Long one to two ounces of cocaine every week

beginning in March 1998 and continuing until Price was arrested at

the end of June 1998. Lisa Hazelwood described in detail her daily

trips to Long's residence for the purpose of obtaining cocaine from

him. Duggins also described how she received cocaine from Long for

her personal use and for further resale. And, both Hazelwood and

Duggins consistently testified that Long took the cocaine they

requested from a desk drawer in a room down the hallway from

Long's kitchen, and described how Long measured the cocaine on

scales, packaged it in baggies and handed it to them. Duggins further

testified that Long provided her with needles and other paraphernalia

to intravenously inject the cocaine he provided. Harriett Price attested

as to the events she witnessed when she accompanied her husband,

Marvin Lee Price, to Long's trailer when Price distributed cocaine to

Long. There was further evidence of Long's payment for cocaine previously fronted to him, and the recovery of two small white baggies

containing cocaine, a set of scales (containing cocaine residue), and

several weapons from the desk in the locked room of the trailer. Also

recovered was a bottle of Inositol powder, which experienced Investigator Keith Wescott of the Henry County Sheriff's Office testified

was a dietary supplement which often is mixed with cocaine to cut its

purity.

Long testified in his defense that he thought the substance found

in his desk drawer in the same room described by Hazelwood, Duggins, and the Prices as the location where cocaine transactions

occurred, was a food supplement for his chickens, given to him by a

man whose real name Long did not know. Ronnie Jody Shelton testified on Long's behalf that he was employed by Long to assist in the

care of Long's chickens, and that that care included feeding the chickens with a substance called "GAP," which Long told him was to produce more stamina and strength for fighting. Shelton testified he

 3
never saw Long sell drugs, and denied seeing any weapons on the

property.

We have reviewed the record and find that there exists substantial

evidence to support the verdict when viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the prosecution. See Glasser , 315 U.S. at 80. It is

apparent that the jury found the evidence provided by the Prices, Ms.

Hazelwood, Ms. Duggins, and others to be more credible than that

presented by Long, a finding this court may not disturb. See Saunders,

886 F.2d at 60. We therefore sustain the verdict, and affirm Long's

conviction 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

 4