United States v. Young , 100 F. App'x 214 ( 2004 )

Vacated by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4773
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LANTIS JETON YOUNG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-00-131-MU)
Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert
J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lantis Jeton Young appeals his six convictions and
corresponding sentence of life imprisonment for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000); using and carrying a
firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime
resulting in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), (j)(1);
possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000); two counts of using and
carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000); and carjacking
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2000). Counsel for Young has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), in which he states there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but presents a sufficiency of the evidence claim as to each
of Young’s convictions. Young was informed of his right to file
a pro se supplemental brief and has elected to do so. Finding no
reversible error in Young’s trial or sentence, we affirm.
In reviewing Young’s sufficiency of the evidence
challenge, we bear in mind that “[t]he verdict of the jury must be
sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most
favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). “[S]ubstantial evidence is
evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate
- 2 -
and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,
862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The evidence established at Young’s
trial, largely unrebutted, substantially established his guilt as
to all six counts. Thus, we reject his challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence on all counts as baseless.
We have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. Additionally, we reject the claims raised in
Young’s pro se supplemental brief as meritless. Accordingly, we
affirm Young’s convictions. This court requires that counsel
inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If the client
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense
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
- 3 -