UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4840

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALPHEUS SPENCER ADAMS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:08-cr-00033-jlk-3)

Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 19, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Hurt, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT HURT, Chatham, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alpheus Spencer Adams was convicted after a jury trial 

and sentenced to 235 months in prison for one count of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty 

grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), 

and one count of distribution of more than five grams of cocaine 

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). 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 suggests that the district court may have erred when 

it denied Adams’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment of 

acquittal. Adams filed a pro se supplemental brief, essentially 

reiterating the objections to his presentence investigation 

report that counsel raised at sentencing. The Government 

declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no error, we 

affirm.

First, we reject counsel’s suggestion that the 

district court may have erred when it denied Adams’ Rule 29 

motion based on insufficient evidence. “A defendant challenging 

the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden.” United 

States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007). This court 

reviews a sufficiency of the evidence challenge by determining 

whether, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 
3

the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005)

(emphasis omitted). 

However, 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). 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) (citation omitted). We 

have reviewed the record and conclude that the Government 

presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. 

We also affirm Adams’ sentence. Adams’ presentence 

investigation report properly placed him in a category I 

criminal history and attributed him with a total offense level 

of thirty-eight, yielding a Guidelines range of 235 to 293 

months in prison. Moreover, although the district court 

appropriately heard counsel’s argument at sentencing regarding 

his objections to Adams’ Guidelines range calculation, the 

district court correctly overruled those objections. The 

district court entertained counsel’s argument regarding the 

weight that should be afforded the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)

factors, allowed Adams an opportunity to allocute, and 

considered the § 3553(a) factors before imposing Adams’ 
4

sentence. We find that the district court also adequately 

explained its rationale for imposing Adams’ 235-month sentence 

and that the reasons relied upon by the district court are 

plausible and justify the sentence imposed. See United States 

v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We thus affirm 

Adams’ within-Guidelines sentence. See Allen, 491 F.3d at 193 

(recognizing that this court applies an appellate presumption of 

reasonableness to a within-Guidelines sentence).

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 Adams, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Adams 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 Adams. 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