UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-4857

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

WILBUR DERRICK GREEN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

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

District Judge. (4:06-cr-00031-jlk) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David R. Lett, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. 

Brownlee, United States Attorney, Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Wilbur Derrick Green appeals from his conviction for 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1000 

kilograms of marijuana. Green argues that the Government’s 

evidence supports the existence of three separate conspiracies 

and that these conspiracies were not interdependent. Green did 

not raise this issue below, therefore we review for plain error. 

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Finding no 

error, we affirm. 

 A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the 

evidence faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 

F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). “[A]n appellate court’s 

reversal of a conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence 

should be confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is 

clear.” United States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 

1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). A jury’s verdict must 

be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the 

record to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 

(1942). In determining whether the evidence in the record is 

substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the Government and inquire whether there 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. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 

2 
(4th Cir. 1996). To prove conspiracy to distribute a controlled 

substance, the Government must establish: (1) an agreement to 

distribute existed between two or more persons; (2) the 

defendant knew of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant 

knowingly and voluntarily became part of the conspiracy. Id. at 

857. With respect to the last element, the Government need not 

prove that the defendant knew the particulars of the conspiracy 

or all of his co-conspirators. Id. at 858. The evidence need 

only establish a slight connection between the defendant and the 

conspiracy to support the conviction. United States v. Seni, 

662 F.2d 277, 285 n.7 (4th Cir. 1981). 

We have reviewed the evidence and find that sufficient 

evidence supported the conclusion that Green was involved with a 

conspiracy involving 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana. Green 

provided assistance to the co-conspirators, was aware of at 

least $700,000 in cash possessed by the co-conspirators, 

assisted in procuring storage for hundreds of pounds of 

marijuana, transported 600 to 800 pounds of marijuana, and 

participated in discussions with associates of co-conspirators 

about continuing marijuana trafficking. Therefore, there is 

evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as 

adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of Green’s guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no plain error. 

3 
4 

 Accordingly, we affirm Green’s conviction.* 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

 *

In Green’s reply brief, he notes for the first time that 

the judgment reflects that the conspiracy involved marijuana and 

cocaine and that the jury only convicted him based on a 

marijuana conspiracy. He requests in a footnote that this court 

vacate and remand for resentencing or a new trial on this basis. 

We see no basis to resentence or grant a new trial due to 

clerical error.