UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4403

JAVIER FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.

(CR-95-11-V)

Submitted: April 7, 1998

Decided: June 18, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

W. Andy Sumrall, Jackson, Mississippi, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Kenneth D. Bell, First Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Javier Flores was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine and conspiracy to import into the United States a quantity

of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C.A. SS 846, 963 (West Supp.

1997). On appeal he alleges that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal and (2) the jury's verdict somehow is

invalid because it quickly returned a verdict of guilty. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm.

In analyzing a claim that a district court erroneously denied a

motion for acquittal, we utilize a sufficiency of the evidence standard.

See United States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1146-47 (4th Cir. 1992).

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction,

the relevant question is whether, viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have

found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). If there exists substantial evidence to support a verdict, the verdict must be sustained. See Glasser

v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Even the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may be sufficient to sustain a conviction, see

United States v. Burns, 990 F.2d 1426, 1439 (4th Cir. 1993), and it

is the role of the jury to judge the credibility of witnesses, resolve

conflicts in testimony, and weigh the evidence. See United States v.

Manbeck, 744 F.2d 360, 392 (4th Cir. 1984). This court may reverse

a jury verdict only when there is a complete absence of probative

facts to support the conclusion reached by the jury. See Sherrill White

Constr., Inc. v. South Carolina Nat'l Bank, 713 F.2d 1047, 1050 (4th

Cir. 1983). Thus, a reviewing court "may not overturn a substantially

supported verdict merely because it finds the verdict unpalatable or

determines that another reasonable verdict would be preferable."

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc),

cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1087 (1997).

Brothers Danny and Tony Mathis of North Carolina were drug

dealers who bought cocaine and methamphetamine from Danny Fausett of Georgia. In approximately October 1994, they agreed to coop-

 2
erate with the Government. At trial both brothers testified regarding

drug transactions between them and Fausett. Several taped conversations between Danny Mathis and Fausett were entered into evidence.

The Government also presented evidence from law enforcement and

customs agents.

Construing the evidence presented at the trial in the light most

favorable to the Government, as we are required, reveals the following. On November 15, 1994, Danny Mathis met with Fausett at his

Georgia farm for the purpose of paying off a previously incurred

methamphetamine debt. During the meeting Fausett told Mathis that

he planned to order from his supplier sixty pounds of

methamphetamine--double his normal order--and that it would be at

least two weeks before the load would arrive. At a January 16, 1995,

meeting Fausett told Mathis that his sixty-two pound load had been

lost in Mississippi. He said that two Mexicans, driving a pickup truck

and following a tractor trailer, had been stopped and the police found

the methamphetamine hidden in the gas tank. Fausett also indicated

that one of the Mexicans had made the trip many times.

Based upon this recorded conversation, the Government researched

methamphetamine seizures in Mississippi from November 15, 1994,

through January 16, 1995. They found that the only seizure of

methamphetamine nearing the size of a sixty-two pound shipment

described by Fausett was made on December 6, 1994, from Javier

Flores. The details were: a Mississippi deputy pulled over a pickup

truck driven by Flores; Flores was traveling with another Mexican,

his brother; the pickup was behind a tractor trailer; and a sixty-four

pound shipment of methamphetamine was found in a compartment

near the gas tank.

At trial Danny Mathis testified that the one pound bricks of

methamphetamine seized from Flores in Mississippi matched the

appearance of other bricks seized from Fausett's farm. Each one

pound package was enclosed within a food wrapper with the words

"Food Saver by Tilia." As counted by the Government in closing

arguments, there were sixty-three methamphetamine bricks seized

from Flores in Mississippi.

Flores admits in his brief that there was ample proof of a drug conspiracy between the Mathis brothers and Fausett to distribute

 3
methamphetamine and cocaine into North Carolina. He alleges, however, that there was insufficient evidence linking him to either Fausett

or the Mathis brothers. Flores therefore argues that evidence was

insufficient to show he knew of the conspiracies and knowingly and

voluntarily became part the conspiracies, as required for both convictions. See United States v. Chambers, 985 F.2d 1263, 1270 (4th Cir.

1993) (holding that in a conspiracy case, the government must prove

that a conspiracy existed, that the defendant had knowledge of, and

that he voluntarily became part of, the conspiracy). Flores does not

allege insufficient evidence with respect to any other elements of the

offenses.

Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show that Flores was the methamphetamine

supplier Fausett described to Danny Mathis. Because of his status as

a supplier to the Fausett-Mathis drug conspiracy, Flores therefore

knew of and joined in the charged conspiracy to distribute and import

the methamphetamine. "Like the conspirators' agreement, a defendant's participation in the conspiracy need not be explicit; it may be

inferred from circumstantial evidence." Burgos, 94 F.3d at 858 (citation and internal quotations omitted). To prove a defendant's connection to the conspiracy the Government need not prove that the

defendant "knew the particulars of the conspiracy or all his coconspirators." Id. (citing Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557

(1947)). "Indeed a defendant properly may be convicted of conspiracy

`without full knowledge of all of [the] details . . . if he joins the conspiracy with an understanding of the unlawful nature thereof and willfully joins in the plan on one occasion.'" Id. (quoting United States

v. Roberts, 881 F.2d 95, 101 (4th Cir. 1989)).

Flores' second argument is that because the jury returned a verdict

in less than ten minutes it could not "rationally have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if it fully understood the facts

and circumstances and the law in this case."* Flores provides no legal

support for this argument or gives any other basis for his assertion of

jury error. Thus, we deny relief on this claim.

_________________________________________________________________

*(Appellant's Br. at p. 8).

 4
Accordingly, because we find no merit in the issues raised by Flores on appeal, we affirm Flores' convictions. 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

 5