Court Opinion

ID: 9956776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:36.067698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:55.306649
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4156      Doc: 34         Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4156

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RANDY DERRELL WRIGHT,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00010-GMG-RWT-1)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                          Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. William
        Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Kimberley D. Crockett,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4156      Doc: 34           Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Randy Derrell Wright appeals his convictions for conspiracy to distribute fentanyl,

        in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846, and aiding and abetting in the

        distribution of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

        He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no error,

        we affirm.

               In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence presented in a bench trial, we
               must uphold a guilty verdict if, taking the view most favorable to the
               Government, there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.
               “Substantial evidence” means 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.

        United States v. Landersman, 886 F.3d 393, 406 (4th Cir. 2018) (citation and internal

        quotation marks omitted). In determining whether the evidence is substantial, we may not

        resolve conflicts in the evidence or evaluate witness credibility. United States v. Savage,

        885 F.3d 212, 219 (4th Cir. 2018).

               To convict Wright of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, the

        Government had to prove “(1) an agreement between two or more persons to distribute [a

        controlled substance], (2) [Wright’s] knowledge of the conspiracy, and (3) [Wright’s]

        knowing and voluntary participation in the conspiracy.” United States v. Seigler, 990 F.3d

        331, 334, 337 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). To prove aiding and

        abetting, the prosecution must establish that the defendant “(1) took an affirmative act in

        furtherance of the underlying offense and (2) did so with the intent of facilitating the

        offense’s commission.” United States v. Odum, 65 F.4th 714, 721 (4th Cir. 2023).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4156      Doc: 34         Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

               With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the record on appeal and have

        considered Wright’s arguments and conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most

        favorable to the Government, there is substantial evidence to support Wright’s convictions.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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