United States v. Crawford ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4864
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM BUTLER CRAWFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. James C. Cacheris,
Senior District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-02-235)
Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 9, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph Marshall Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH MARSHALL LEE,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Karen S. Marston, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Butler Crawford appeals his jury conviction of
using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking
crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). Crawford asserts
there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to sustain his
§ 924(c) conviction. We affirm.
To determine if there was sufficient evidence to support
a conviction, this court considers whether, taking the evidence in
the light most favorable to the Government, substantial evidence
supports the jury’s verdict. United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476,
495 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2906 (2004).
Substantial evidence is defined as “that evidence 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)). We review both the direct and
circumstantial evidence and permit “the [G]overnment the benefit of
all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to
be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021
(4th Cir. 1982).
In reviewing claims of sufficiency of the evidence,
“[t]he relevant question is not whether the appellate court is
convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather whether,
- 2 -
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government,
any rational trier of facts could have found the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Tresvant, 677 F.2d at 1021. Crawford
argues that mere possession or presence of a firearm, by itself,
does not sustain a conviction under § 924(c). Under United
States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002), factors that might
lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude the requisite nexus
existed between the firearm and the drug offense include: “‘the
type of drug activity that is being conducted, accessibility of the
firearm, the type of weapon . . . , whether the gun is loaded,
proximity to drugs or drug profits, and the time and circumstances
under which the gun is found.’” Id. at 705 (quoting United
States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2000)).
With these standards in mind, we find there was sufficient evidence
to support the jury’s conclusion that Crawford possessed the
firearm in furtherance of his drug trafficking activities.
Accordingly, we affirm his § 924(c) 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
- 3 -