United States v. Fergus ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4748
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES ALLEN FERGUS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-04-243)
Submitted: January 23, 2006 Decided: March 6, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert B. Rigney, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Vince
Gambale, Sherrie S. Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Allen Fergus appeals his conviction by a jury of
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute less
than five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846(2000). He contends that the district court erred by denying his
motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.
We affirm.
Fergus contends that the evidence did not support his
conspiracy conviction. We review de novo the district court’s
denial of a Rule 29 motion. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681,
693 (4th Cir. 2005). Where, as here, the motion was based on a
claim of insufficient evidence, “[t]he verdict of a 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 reviewed the trial
testimony in the joint appendix and are convinced that the evidence
was sufficient to convict Fergus. See United States v. Strickland,
245 F.3d 368, 384-85 (4th Cir. 2001) (discussing elements of
offense); United States v. Cardwell, __ F.3d __, __, 2005 WL
3557390, at *8 (4th Cir. Dec. 30, 2005) (“It is no defense to a
conspiracy charge that one’s role in the conspiracy is minor.”).
Accordingly, we affirm Fergus’ conviction. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -