UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4015

ANDREA LYNNETTE EPPS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-274)

Submitted: May 23, 2002

Decided: June 4, 2002

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Denise Jakabcin Tassi, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.

McNulty, United States Attorney, Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Special

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Andrea Lynnette Epps appeals her convictions for possession with

intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute

crack cocaine in excess of fifty grams, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841(a)(1) (West 1999), and subsequent 121-month sentence. On

appeal, Epps raises two issues: (1) the Government’s reference to her

prior confession at trial was improper, deprived her of a fair trial, and

violated her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination; and

(2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her convictions. We

affirm. 

Epps first contends the Government violated her Fifth Amendment

right against self-incrimination and her right to a fair trial by: (1)

questioning Epps during cross-examination about statements she

made to law enforcement officers after being read her Miranda*

rights; (2) arguing during closing arguments that Epps should have

contacted police and reported Knockett when he left drugs in her

apartment; and (3) questioning a police officer concerning whether

Epps ever contacted him after her arrest to change her story about her

New York contact. Because Epps did not raise an objection to these

comments at trial, her claim is reviewed for plain error. United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). 

The Government’s reference to Epps’ prior confession did not violate her Fifth Amendment rights. First, Epps was read her Miranda

warnings as the police officers entered her residence when executing

a valid search warrant. Epps was informed that she had the right to

remain silent; nevertheless, she waived her right to remain silent and

gave the police officers present information as to her drug trafficking

activities. Hence, the statements she made to the police could be used

against her at trial. Furthermore, by taking the stand in her own

defense, Epps subjected herself to the perils of cross-examination,

including possible impeachment of her credibility. Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 235-36 (1980). Therefore, we conclude the Government did not violate Epps’ Fifth Amendment rights. 

*Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 

2 UNITED STATES v. EPPS
As to Epps’ assertion that the Government’s comments during

closing argument were improper and deprived her of a fair trial, we

find no plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732

(1993). 

Next, Epps challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support

her conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. In

reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, we must sustain the verdict if the record contains "substantial evidence, taking the

view most favorable to the Government, to support it." Glasser v.

United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Applying this standard, we

give due regard to the fact finder’s prerogative to resolve questions

of credibility. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir.

1996). With these principles in mind, we conclude the Government

presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find

Epps guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges against her. 

Accordingly, we affirm Epps’ 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. EPPS 3