UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4152

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BRANDON ANTHONY COLBERT,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00168-JAB-2)

Submitted: August 4, 2010 Decided: September 16, 2010

Before SHEDD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. McClellan, IVEY, MCCLELLAN, GATTON & TALCOTT, L.L.P., 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, 

United States Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Anthony Colbert was found guilty by a jury of 

being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2006), and was 

sentenced to 120 months in prison. Counsel has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

stating that after a review of the record, he has found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. The Anders brief nonetheless 

challenges whether there was sufficient evidence to support the 

jury’s verdict. Colbert filed a pro se supplemental brief, also 

arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his 

conviction, and asserting that the jury improperly inferred his 

guilt because another individual took responsibility for 

possessing the weapon underlying the charge for which Colbert 

was convicted. The Government has filed a responsive brief, 

arguing that the district court correctly denied Colbert’s Rule 

29 motion and that Colbert’s arguments are “no more than a 

request to this court to overturn the credibility and 

believability determinations made by the jury.” Concluding that 

no reversible error occurred, we affirm.

First, we uphold the jury’s verdict. This court 

reviews the denial of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion de novo. See

United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). 

When a Rule 29 motion was based on a claim of insufficient 
3

evidence, the jury’s verdict must be sustained “if there is 

substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the 

Government, to support it.” United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 

210, 244 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks, brackets and 

citations omitted). This court “ha[s] 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.” Alerre, 430 F.3d 

at 693 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this 

court “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) (citations omitted). The court may not weigh 

the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses. See

United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 185 (4th Cir. 2007). 

Thus, “if the evidence supports different, reasonable 

interpretations, the jury decides which interpretation to 

believe[.]” United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 

1994) (citations omitted). A defendant challenging the 

sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. See United 

States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). 
4

To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the 

Government was required to prove that: (i) Colbert was a 

convicted felon at the time of the offense; (ii) he voluntarily 

and intentionally possessed a firearm; and (iii) the firearm 

traveled in interstate commerce. United States v. Gallimore, 

247 F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001). Here, the parties stipulated 

that Colbert was a convicted felon and that the firearm had the 

requisite interstate commerce nexus. The only disputed issue, 

therefore, was whether the evidence established that Colbert 

“possessed” a firearm on December 7, 2007. We hold that the 

Government produced sufficient evidence to establish that 

Colbert possessed the weapon underlying his conviction and, 

hence, find the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s 

verdict.

Although not challenged by Colbert, we have also 

reviewed his sentence in accordance with our obligations under 

Anders and affirm his sentence. Colbert’s presentence 

investigation report properly placed him in a category IV 

criminal history and attributed him with a total offense level 

of twenty-eight, yielding a Guidelines range of 140 to 175 

months which, given the statutory maximum of ten years in 

prison, became 120 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2006). 

We also conclude that no reversible error occurred 

during Colbert’s sentencing hearing. The district court 
5

appropriately inquired at sentencing whether there were 

objections to Colbert’s presentence investigation report, to 

which counsel responded there were not, asked whether defense 

counsel had argument to present in mitigation, and afforded 

Colbert an opportunity to allocute. We discern no reversible 

error in the district court’s explanation for its 120-month 

sentence. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576-80

(4th Cir. 2010). Thus, in the absence of argument challenging 

Colbert’s within-Guidelines sentence, we affirm his 120-month 

sentence. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th 

Cir. 2007) (“A sentence within the proper Sentencing Guidelines 

range is presumptively reasonable.”).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Colbert, in writing, of the right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Colbert requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Colbert. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
6

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED