Filed: Oct. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DERRICK CLIFFTON MARTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-207) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 17, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter T. John
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DERRICK CLIFFTON MARTIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-207) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 17, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter T. Johns..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4114
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DERRICK CLIFFTON MARTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-96-207)
Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 17, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter T. Johnson, Jr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Clifton T. Barrett,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Cliffton Martin appeals his jury conviction for con-
spiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§
841, 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). The court subsequently sen-
tenced Martin to life imprisonment. On appeal, Martin attacks the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We have
reviewed the record, and viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government, we find sufficient evidence to support
Martin’s conviction. See Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80
(1942); United States v. Burgos,
94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, we affirm Martin’s conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense 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
2