United States v. Ronnie Cupp

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4639
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONNIE EDWARD CUPP,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:13-cr-00022-NKM-11)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Seth C. Weston, LAW OFFICE OF SETH C. WESTON, PLC, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
Attorney, Ashley B. Neese, Assistant United States Attorney,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Edward Cupp appeals his conviction and 204-month
sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with the intent to distribute oxycodone,
methadone, amphetamine, oxymorphone, hydromorphone or
buprenorphine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012). Cupp’s sole argument on appeal is that
the district court erred when it denied his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29
motion for judgment of acquittal. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review de novo the denial of a Rule 29 motion. United
States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011). A defendant
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces “a heavy
burden.” United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129, 137 (4th Cir.
2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The jury verdict must
be sustained if “there is substantial evidence in the record,
when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to
support the conviction.” Jaensch, 665 F.3d at 93 (internal
quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is evidence
that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted). “Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for
the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United
2
States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
It is well settled that to convict Cupp of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with the intent to distribute narcotics,
the Government had to prove the following essential elements:
“(1) an agreement between two or more persons to engage in
conduct that violates a federal drug law; (2) the defendant’s
knowledge of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant’s knowing and
voluntary participation in the conspiracy.” United States v.
Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the
record and have considered Cupp’s arguments and find no error in
the district court’s decision to deny Cupp’s Rule 29 motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3