US v. Wilbur Green

Filing 920081016


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4857 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. WILBUR DERRICK GREEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00031-jlk) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David R. Lett, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wilbur Derrick Green appeals from his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. Green argues that the Government's evidence supports the existence of three separate conspiracies and that these conspiracies were not interdependent. Green did not raise this issue below, therefore we review for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). error, we affirm. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the Finding no evidence faces a heavy burden. F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. United States v. Beidler, 110 "[A]n appellate court's 1997). reversal of a conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence should be confined to cases where the prosecution's failure is clear." United States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. A jury's verdict must 1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. (1942). Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and inquire of fact whether could there accept is evidence as that a reasonable finder adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 2 (4th Cir. 1996). To prove conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, the Government must establish: (1) an agreement to distribute defendant existed knew of between the two or more and persons; (3) the (2) the conspiracy; defendant Id. at knowingly and voluntarily became part of the conspiracy. 857. With respect to the last element, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew the particulars of the conspiracy or all of his co-conspirators. Id. at 858. The evidence need only establish a slight connection between the defendant and the conspiracy to support the conviction. 662 F.2d 277, 285 n.7 (4th Cir. 1981). We have reviewed the evidence and find that sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that Green was involved with a conspiracy involving 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana. provided least assistance in to the co-conspirators, by the was aware Green of at United States v. Seni, $700,000 in cash possessed for 800 co-conspirators, of pounds of and assisted marijuana, procuring storage 600 to hundreds pounds of transported marijuana, participated in discussions with associates of co-conspirators about continuing that a marijuana reasonable trafficking. finder of Therefore, fact could there accept is as evidence adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of Green's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no plain error. 3 Accordingly, dispense with oral we affirm Green's the conviction. * facts and We legal argument because contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED In Green's reply brief, he notes for the first time that the judgment reflects that the conspiracy involved marijuana and cocaine and that the jury only convicted him based on a marijuana conspiracy. He requests in a footnote that this court vacate and remand for resentencing or a new trial on this basis. We see no basis to resentence or grant a new trial due to clerical error. * 4

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?