UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4778

ANTONIO FRANCIS BUCK,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-97-15)

Submitted: March 31, 1998

Decided: May 11, 1998

Before WIDENER and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John W. Luxton, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Nicholas S. Altimari, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Antonio Francis Buck was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute crack and powder cocaine and heroin

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). He was sentenced to 188

months' imprisonment. On appeal, Buck challenges the sufficiency of

the evidence to support his conviction. The crux of Buck's argument

is that because his companion, Angela Denise Murray, was in possession of the seized narcotics he should not be held accountable as a coconspirator. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

A jury verdict "must be sustained if there is substantial evidence,

taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it."

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

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)), cert. denied, 65

U.S.L.W. 3586 (U.S. Feb. 24, 1997) (No. 96-6868). It is "[t]he jury,

not the reviewing court, [that] weighs the credibility of the evidence

and resolves any conflicts in the evidence presented." United States

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

Based on the testimony of co-conspirator Murray and law enforcement officials, the Government established that Buck was acting in

concert with Murray at the time of his arrest. The evidence showed

that Buck initiated this drug trafficking scheme when he asked Murray to accompany him to New York. The agreement was founded on

Buck's need for a drug transporter and Murray's need for narcotics

due to her addiction. Murray purchased bus tickets for their trip after

Buck supplied her with money and instructed her to purchase the tickets under a fictitious name. Once the two arrived in New York, Buck

consummated a drug deal. He subsequently placed the narcotics into

the bag that Murray was carrying. Murray continued to maintain possession of the bag until they boarded the bus to return to Richmond.

 2
The testimony then revealed that during a stopover in Baltimore,

members of the DEA task force boarded the bus and requested permission to search certain bags. At first, neither Buck nor Murray

claimed that they owned the bag that contained the narcotics. One

agent testified that he observed Buck whisper something to Murray

and then she claimed ownership of the bag. After Murray consented

to a search of the bag, contraband was found. Murray explained to the

officers that Buck asked her to travel to New York with him so that

she could transport the drugs he purchased back to Richmond.

The agent further testified that a search of Buck revealed that he

was in possession of digital scales, a portable cellular phone, and

ticket stubs issued under a fictitious name. Buck also lied about his

identity when he was questioned by law enforcement officials. Buck

offered no explanation for having the scales in his possession or for

lying to the officers about his identity. Finally, Buck neither offered

any evidence on his behalf, nor did he impeach Murray on the witness

stand. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence of Buck's guilt, as described above, is more than

adequate to support the verdict. See Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862.

Buck has filed a motion to file a supplemental formal brief with

this Court. We decline to address these issues and deny his motion.

Accordingly, we affirm Buck's conviction and deny his motion to

file a pro se supplemental formal brief. 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

 3