UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4688

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CHARLIE EMANUEL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District 

Judge. (3:10-cr-00307-JRS-2)

Submitted: May 10, 2012 Decided: May 29, 2012

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Horace F. Hunter, HUNTER & LIPTON, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, N.G. 

Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Emanuel appeals the sixty-month sentence 

imposed following his jury convictions of conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006) (Count Six); two counts of 

possession with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine 

base and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 

(2006), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts Seven and Eight); and 

distribution of cocaine base and aiding and abetting, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count Nine). 

On appeal, Emanuel argues that there was insufficient evidence 

to support his convictions. Finding the evidence to be 

sufficient, we affirm.

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the 

evidence de novo. United States v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180, 186 (4th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 617 (2010). We will uphold the 

jury verdict “if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the 

light most favorable to the Government, to support it.” United 

States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2006). 

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. King, 628 F.3d 693, 700 (4th Cir. 

2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). In resolving issues 
3

of substantial evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or 

reassess the factfinder’s determination of witness credibility 

and must assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in 

testimony in favor of the Government. See United States v. 

Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008).

To obtain a conviction for a drug conspiracy, the 

Government must prove the following elements: (1) an agreement 

between two or more people to distribute the drug or possess it 

with the intent to distribute; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of 

the conspiracy; and (3) his knowing, voluntary participation in 

the conspiracy. United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th 

Cir. 2010). A defendant may be convicted of conspiracy without 

knowing all of its details and even if he plays only a minor 

role. Id. at 367-68; United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 858 

(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

To establish possession with intent to distribute, the 

Government must show “(1) possession of the controlled 

substance; (2) knowledge of the possession; and (3) intent to 

distribute.” United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257, 267 n.10 (4th 

Cir. 2009). Possession may be actual or constructive. United 

States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 878 (4th Cir. 1992). “A person 

may have constructive possession of contraband if he has 

ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband or the 

premises or vehicle in which the contraband was 
4

concealed.” United States v. Herder, 594 F.3d 352, 358 (4th 

Cir. 2010). 

To establish an aiding and abetting charge under 18 

U.S.C. § 2, “the [G]overnment must show that the defendant 

knowingly associated himself with and participated in the 

criminal venture.” United States v. Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186, 197 

(4th Cir. 2009). “To be convicted of aiding and abetting, 

participation in every stage of an illegal venture is not 

required, only participation at some stage accompanied by 

knowledge of the result and intent to bring about that 

result.” United States v. Arrington, 719 F.2d 701, 705 (4th 

Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

Finally, to establish distribution in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the Government must prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally 

distributed a controlled substance. United States v. Yearwood, 

518 F.2d 220, 227 (4th Cir. 2008).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s determination of 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all four counts. The 

evidence showed that Emanuel opened up his home for drug 

transactions, acted as a middleman in contacting dealers for 

customers, and was present for and participated in the 

transactions. Although Emanuel testified to the contrary, we 
5

will not second-guess the jury’s credibility 

determinations. See Brooks, 524 F.3d at 564.

Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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