US v. Daryl F. Locust

Filing 920080104


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4490 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DARYL F. LOCUST, a/k/a Derek Locust, a/k/a 8, a/k/a Daryl Frank Locusts, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00040-RBS) Submitted: December 17, 2007 Decided: January 4, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James S. Ellenson, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Timothy R. Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daryl F. Locust was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, crack, and cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846 (2000); conspiracy to import heroin, 21 U.S.C. 963 (2000); interstate travel in aid of racketeering, 18 U.S.C. 1952(a)(3) (2000) (three counts); conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) (2000); money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (B)(i) (2000) (ten counts); distribution of sixty-two grams of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2000); using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking activity, 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (2000) (two counts); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (2000). The district court sentenced Locust to two consecutive He noted a timely appeal. life terms plus twenty-five years. Locust challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, arguing that the witnesses who testified against him were not credible because they were all drug dealers and/or convicted felons. A defendant challenging the sufficiency United States v. Beidler, A jury's verdict must be of the evidence faces a heavy burden. 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. - 2 - United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Here, the government presented overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence of Locust's extensive drug dealing and money laundering activities. Locust's sole challenge to the evidence is that the witnesses who testified against him were all drug dealers, drug users, and/or convicted felons. However, it is well settled that this court does not review witness credibility. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm Locust's conviction. We deny Locust's motion to relieve his attorney and 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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?