UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4281

NELSON RAFAEL ZAPATA-VICENTE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-01-61)

Submitted: August 20, 2002

Decided: September 3, 2002

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Douglas A. Ramseur, BOWEN, BRYANT, CHAMPLIN & CARR,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States

Attorney, Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Nelson Zapata-Vicente appeals his convictions and sentence for

conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846 (2000), and distribution of cocaine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) (2000). Finding no reversible error, we

affirm. 

On appeal, Zapata-Vicente first contends that the district court

abused its discretion in admitting evidence that he owned a handgun.

He claims that the evidence had no relevance to the drug trafficking

charges and that its admission prejudiced him by making him appear

more dangerous to the jury. We have held that evidence of gun possession is relevant evidence in a drug conspiracy trial, even if there

is no specific evidence linking the weapon to the conspiracy. United

States v. Ward, 171 F.3d 188, 195 (4th Cir. 1999). In addition, we

have noted that "guns are tools of the drug trade and are commonly

recognized articles of narcotics paraphernalia." Id. (citing United

States v. Ricks, 882 F.2d 885 (4th Cir. 1989)). Our review of the

record in this case reveals that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the probative value of evidence regarding the

handgun outweighed any undue prejudice to Zapata-Vicente. Ward,

171 F.3d at 195 (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we find

this claim to be without merit. 

Zapata-Vincente next contends that the evidence was insufficient

as a matter of law to convict him of conspiracy. 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); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,

862 (4th Cir. 1996). We have reviewed the record and find that the

testimony of the Government’s witnesses, viewed in the light most

favorable to the Government, was sufficient to sustain ZapataVicente’s convictions. Although Zapata-Vincente attacks the credibility of these witnesses on appeal, we note that credibility determinations are within the sole province of the jury and thus are not

susceptible to judicial review. See United States v. Lowe, 65 F.3d

1137, 1142 (4th Cir. 1995). 

2 UNITED STATES v. ZAPATA-VICENTE
Accordingly, we affirm Zapata-Vincente’s convictions and sentence. 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

UNITED STATES v. ZAPATA-VICENTE 3