United States v. Sutton , 88 F. App'x 561 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4178
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BOBBY ANTOINE SUTTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CR-02-65)
Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 12, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen J. Weisbrod, WEISBROD & PHILIPS, P.C., Hampton, Virginia,
for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Laura M.
Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Bobby Antoine Sutton of possession with
intent to distribute cocaine base (Count One), in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii) (2000), and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count Two), in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). Sutton appeals his
conviction on Count Two, alleging that the district court erred in
denying his motion for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P.
29.* We affirm.
Sutton contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support his § 924(c) conviction. He argues that the evidence did
not show that the firearm seized by police was his or that there
was a nexus between the drug trafficking and the gun. We review
the district court’s decision to deny a motion for judgment of
acquittal de novo. United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136
(4th Cir. 2001). Where, as here, the motion was based on
sufficiency of the evidence, “[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). We “have defined ‘substantial
evidence,’ in the context of a criminal action, as that evidence
*
Sutton does not challenge his possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base conviction. See Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that
issues not briefed or argued are deemed abandoned).
- 2 -
which ‘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. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333
(4th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-
63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). In evaluating the sufficiency of
the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses and
assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony
in favor of the government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359,
364 (4th Cir. 1989).
To establish illegal possession of a firearm in violation
of § 924(c), the government must prove that the defendant knowingly
possessed a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or drug
trafficking crime. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government and resolving all contradictions in the
testimony in favor of the government, we find that the evidence
showed that Sutton possessed the firearm in question. We have
construed the “in furtherance of” provision of § 924(c) to require
“the government to present evidence indicating that the possession
of a firearm furthered, advanced, or helped forward a drug
trafficking crime.” United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1031 (2002). Our review of the
record convinces us that the jury heard sufficient evidence to find
Sutton guilty of this offense.
- 3 -
Accordingly, we affirm Sutton’s conviction. 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
- 4 -