UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENNIE LEE JAMES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00079-FL-1)

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Sandra J. Barrett, Hendersonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael 

F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Scott Gainer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4427 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Bennie Lee James of various drug offenses, including conspiracy 

to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 1,000 grams or more of heroin, 40 

grams or more of fentanyl, and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. On appeal, James argues that the district court erred by denying his 

motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 because the evidence was 

insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he conspired to distribute 1,000 grams 

or more of heroin. We affirm.

We conduct a de novo review of the district court’s denial of James’ motion for 

judgment of acquittal. See United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 219 (4th Cir. 2018). 

After such review, “[w]e will uphold the verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the [G]overnment, it is supported by substantial evidence, which 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). In making this determination, we may not resolve conflicts in the evidence or 

evaluate witness credibility. Id. Moreover, “[a] defendant who brings a sufficiency

challenge bears a heavy burden, as appellate reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence 

is confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

We discern no error in the district court’s denial of James’ Rule 29 motion. Viewing 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that the 

Government presented substantial evidence to support all elements of the conviction, 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4427 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

including the drug weight, in the form of lab results from drug mixtures found to be in 

James’ possession, testimony from several different witnesses, and an audio and video 

recording of a conversation in which James and his accomplice described their trafficking 

operation. Although James stresses his view that the witnesses were not credible, in 

determining whether substantial evidence supports a conviction, we “assume that the jury 

resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government,” reflecting “our 

reluctance to overturn the jury’s verdict in all but the most egregious cases.” United 

States v. Ziegler, 1 F.4th 219, 232-33 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4427 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 3