UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAAMAL ANTONIO COTMAN, a/k/a Jamaal A. Cotman,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:10-cr-00185-HEH-1)

Submitted: November 29, 2011 Decided: December 20, 2011

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew W. Greene, GREENE LAW GROUP, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, 

Michael A. Jagels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jaamal Antonio Cotman was convicted of interference 

with commerce by threats and violence, and aiding and abetting 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006) (attempted robbery) 

(Count 1); discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of 

violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), (d) (2006) (Count 

2); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006) (Count 3). Cotman was 

sentenced to a total of 240 months of imprisonment. On appeal, 

he raises one issue: whether the district court erred by denying 

his motion for acquittal for his § 1951 Hobbs Act conviction. 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Cotman’s issue turns on whether the Government proved 

he attempted to rob a drug dealer — which was the conduct 

underlying his § 1951 conviction. We review de novo a denial of 

a motion for acquittal. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 

693 (4th Cir. 2005). Where, as here, the motion was based on a 

claim of insufficient evidence, the verdict of a jury must be 

sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most 

favorable to the Government, to support it. Glasser v. United 

States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We have 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 
3

at 693; see United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 

1996). 

Here, the jury heard evidence that Cotman and Carl 

Phillips exchanged gun fire during what Phillips described as an 

attempted robbery. Phillips was an illegal marijuana dealer. 

Moreover, a fellow inmate testified that Cotman told him of the 

attempted robbery of “Weed Man,” as Phillips was known. Based 

on this testimony, and the supporting forensic evidence, we find 

that the jury could have properly determined that Cotman 

attempted to rob Phillips. Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693; United 

States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994) (noting that 

this court does not review credibility). We have previously 

held that a robbery of a drug dealer is sufficient to establish 

the interstate commerce element of a § 1951 conviction. See

United States v. Williams, 342 F.3d 350, 354 (4th Cir. 2003). 

Thus, we find no error in the district court’s denial of 

Cotman’s motion for acquittal.

Accordingly, we affirm. 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