United States v. London , 272 F. App'x 293 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5202
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND ANTHONY LONDON, a/k/a Kaleak,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00402-2)
Submitted: March 21, 2008 Decided: April 10, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott H. Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Craig D. Randall, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Raymond Anthony London of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute at least fifty grams of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000); possession with
intent to distribute at least five grams of crack on May 5, 2005,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 2(2000); possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000 & Supp.
2007); and being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On appeal, London challenges the
district court’s denial of his Rule 29 motion, arguing that the
evidence was insufficient to convict him. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s decision to deny a Rule 29
motion de novo. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 385 (4th
Cir. 2008). 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); Osborne, 514 F.3d at 385. This court “can reverse
a conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the prosecution’s
failure is clear.” United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th
Cir.) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),
cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 452 (2006).
- 2 -
With these standards in mind, we have carefully
considered London’s claims that the evidence was insufficient to
convict him because officers did not find guns or drugs on his
person during the search on May 5, 2005, and because Agent Tadeo’s
testimony revealed that Edward Woods, a co-conspirator, was the
drug supplier. Our review of the trial testimony convinces us that
the evidence was sufficient to convict London on each count. See
United States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007)
(discussing elements of conspiracy); United States v. Stephens, 482
F.3d 669, 673 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth elements of
§ 924(c)(1) offense); Moye, 454 F.3d at 395 (discussing elements of
§ 922(g) offense); United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th
Cir. 2005) (discussing elements of possession with intent to
distribute); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 873 (4th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (setting forth elements of aiding and abetting).
Finally, to the extent London contends on appeal that several
witnesses against him were not credible, “we do not weigh the
evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses, but assume that
the jury resolved any discrepancies [in the testimony] in favor of
the government.” United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433, 440 (4th
Cir. 2007).
Because the evidence was sufficient to support London’s
convictions, the district court did not err in denying the Rule 29
motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
- 3 -
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 -