Court Opinion

ID: 9381121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:01:01.76283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.143094
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4427      Doc: 30         Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4427

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BENNIE LEE JAMES,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00079-FL-1)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Sandra J. Barrett, Hendersonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael
        F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney,
        Scott Gainer, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4427      Doc: 30         Filed: 03/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               A jury convicted Bennie Lee James of various drug offenses, including conspiracy

        to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 1,000 grams or more of heroin, 40

        grams or more of fentanyl, and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

        §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. On appeal, James argues that the district court erred by denying his

        motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 because the evidence was

        insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he conspired to distribute 1,000 grams

        or more of heroin. We affirm.

               We conduct a de novo review of the district court’s denial of James’ motion for

        judgment of acquittal. See United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 219 (4th Cir. 2018).

        After such review, “[w]e will uphold the verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most

        favorable to the [G]overnment, it is supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence

        that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a

        conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks

        omitted). In making this determination, we may not resolve conflicts in the evidence or

        evaluate witness credibility. Id. Moreover, “[a] defendant who brings a sufficiency

        challenge bears a heavy burden, as appellate reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence

        is confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” Id. (internal quotation marks

        omitted).

               We discern no error in the district court’s denial of James’ Rule 29 motion. Viewing

        the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that the

        Government presented substantial evidence to support all elements of the conviction,

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4427      Doc: 30         Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        including the drug weight, in the form of lab results from drug mixtures found to be in

        James’ possession, testimony from several different witnesses, and an audio and video

        recording of a conversation in which James and his accomplice described their trafficking

        operation. Although James stresses his view that the witnesses were not credible, in

        determining whether substantial evidence supports a conviction, we “assume that the jury

        resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government,” reflecting “our

        reluctance to overturn the jury’s verdict in all but the most egregious cases.” United

        States v. Ziegler, 1 F.4th 219, 232-33 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the

        facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                     3