Court Opinion

ID: 1001688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:59:14.267545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:05.714101
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 99-4823

RONALD G. THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-99-141)

Submitted: May 10, 2000

Decided: May 24, 2000

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John F. McGarvey, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, John S. Davis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Ronald G. Thomas appeals his conviction after a bench trial and
resulting sixty-three month sentence for possession of cocaine with
intent to distribute. Thomas asserts that the evidence presented at trial
was insufficient to support his conviction, because the testimony of
government witness Clyde Moseley, a cocaine dealer and friend of
Thomas's, was incredible.

Whether tried by the bench or by a jury, we must sustain a convic-
tion if there is substantial evidence, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the Government, to support it. See Johnson v. United
States, 271 F.2d 596, 597 (4th Cir. 1959). Substantial evidence is evi-
dence that a reasonable fact finder could accept as adequate and suffi-
cient to support a conclusion of a defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. See United States v. Burgos , 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th
Cir. 1996). We do not review a witness's credibility in assessing the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. See United States
v. Hobbs, 136 F.3d 384, 390-91 n.11 (4th Cir. 1998).

Because we decline to second guess the district court's credibility
determination and because we find, when construed in the light most
favorable to the Government, the evidence is sufficient to support
Thomas's conviction, we affirm his conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense 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

                     2