Opinion ID: 1024346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In his penultimate assignment of error, Hicks asserts the Government failed to present legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict. This court reviews sufficiency of the evidence challenges by determining whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). The court reviews both direct and circumstantial evidence, and permits the “[G]overnment the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the - 5 - facts proven to those sought to be established.” Tresvant, 677 F.2d at 1021. In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does not “weigh the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). Where the evidence supports differing reasonable interpretations, the jury decides which interpretation to credit. Id. The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may be sufficient evidence of guilt, even if the witness is an accomplice, a co-defendant, or an informant. United States v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1189-90 (4th Cir. 1997). Hicks’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails because it is predicated entirely on his contention that the jury should have credited his testimony and rejected Prayear’s testimony regarding what occurred in Prayear’s vehicle on September 8 and 9. Although Hicks’ testimony plainly contradicted the Government’s evidence, whether to credit Hicks’ or Prayear’s version of events was entirely within the jury’s province, and we will not review such credibility determinations on appeal. Wilson, 118 F.3d at 234. - 6 - IV. Hicks’ Request to File Pro Se Supplemental Brief Although his appeal was not filed pursuant to Anders,2 which would afford Hicks a right to file a pro se supplemental brief, see Anders, 386 U.S. at 743-44, Hicks nonetheless requests leave to submit a pro se supplemental brief. In the proposed supplement submitted with Hicks’ motion, Hicks raises only one contention: that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because he was sentenced for distribution of crack cocaine but the indictment charged and the Government’s evidence proved distribution of cocaine base. Although we grant Hicks leave to file the proposed supplemental brief, we nonetheless reject the claim raised therein. Tracking the language of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), the indictment charged Hicks with distribution of more than five grams of cocaine base. This court has opined that crack cocaine and cocaine base are interchangeable terms. United States v. Ramos, 462 F.3d 329, 334 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 697 (2006). Accordingly, we grant leave to file the proposed pro se supplemental brief and we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). - 7 - are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 8 -