Opinion ID: 1002257
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Sellers does not contest his conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute (Count Two). He contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of killing or causing the killing of Folmar in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise (Count Three), traveling from Maryland to West Virginia to carry on a drug business and then killing Folmar to further the drug business (Count Four), and of the resulting § 924(c) charge (Count Five). A 5 conviction must be upheld if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury could find substantial evidence to support the conviction. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996). The appeals court does not independently weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. See United States v. Reavis, 48 F.3d 763, 771 (4th Cir. 1995). Of course, if the government's evidence is weak and the contrary evidence is strong, the reviewing court may find that substantial evidence was lacking. See United States v. Giunta, 925 F.2d 758, 768 (4th Cir. 1991). While Sellers' evidence cast doubt on the testimony of the one witness who recounted seeing Sellers shoot Folmar, Denise Grantham's testimony provided a sufficient basis for Sellers' conviction on Counts Three and Four. In addition, the evidence that Sellers caused the knife attack on Folmar was substantial because two witnesses testified that Sellers was looking for a knife (or razor) just before he accompanied Turner to Folmar's car. Sellers argues that he was not important enough in Turner's drug business to have acted in furtherance of the enterprise. However, a number of witnesses testified that Sellers was Turner's right-hand man for drug dealing. Finally, Sellers maintains that there was no evidence that the killing had any connection to furthering the criminal enterprise. This argument flies in the face of evidence that Turner thought Folmar was working for the police and had an interest in getting rid of her for that reason. Substantial evidence thus supports Sellers' convictions on Counts Three and Four. Because there was also substantial evidence that he aided and abetted Turner's use of a firearm to kill Folmar, Sellers' challenge to his conviction on the § 924(c) charge (Count Five) necessarily fails.