Filed: Jul. 19, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4840 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ALPHEUS SPENCER ADAMS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00033-jlk-3) Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 19, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Hurt, LAW OFFICE
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4840 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ALPHEUS SPENCER ADAMS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00033-jlk-3) Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 19, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Hurt, LAW OFFICES..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4840
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALPHEUS SPENCER ADAMS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cr-00033-jlk-3)
Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 19, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Hurt, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT HURT, Chatham, Virginia, for
Appellant. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States
Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alpheus Spencer Adams was convicted after a jury trial
and sentenced to 235 months in prison for one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty
grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006),
and one count of distribution of more than five grams of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Counsel has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that after a review of the record, he has
found no meritorious issues for appeal. The Anders brief
nonetheless suggests that the district court may have erred when
it denied Adams’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment of
acquittal. Adams filed a pro se supplemental brief, essentially
reiterating the objections to his presentence investigation
report that counsel raised at sentencing. The Government
declined to file a responsive brief. Finding no error, we
affirm.
First, we reject counsel’s suggestion that the
district court may have erred when it denied Adams’ Rule 29
motion based on insufficient evidence. “A defendant challenging
the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden.” United
States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007). This court
reviews a sufficiency of the evidence challenge by determining
whether, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
2
the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005)
(emphasis omitted).
However, the court may not weigh the evidence or
review the credibility of the witnesses. See United States v.
Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 185 (4th Cir. 2007). If the evidence
“supports different, reasonable interpretations, the jury
decides which interpretation to believe[.]” United States v.
Murphy,
35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). We
have reviewed the record and conclude that the Government
presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
We also affirm Adams’ sentence. Adams’ presentence
investigation report properly placed him in a category I
criminal history and attributed him with a total offense level
of thirty-eight, yielding a Guidelines range of 235 to 293
months in prison. Moreover, although the district court
appropriately heard counsel’s argument at sentencing regarding
his objections to Adams’ Guidelines range calculation, the
district court correctly overruled those objections. The
district court entertained counsel’s argument regarding the
weight that should be afforded the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors, allowed Adams an opportunity to allocute, and
considered the § 3553(a) factors before imposing Adams’
3
sentence. We find that the district court also adequately
explained its rationale for imposing Adams’ 235-month sentence
and that the reasons relied upon by the district court are
plausible and justify the sentence imposed. See United States
v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). We thus affirm
Adams’ within-Guidelines sentence. See
Allen, 491 F.3d at 193
(recognizing that this court applies an appellate presumption of
reasonableness to a within-Guidelines sentence).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Adams, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Adams requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Adams. 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
4
