US v. Spencer Webb

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00014-RBS-DEM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998689187]. [11-4002]

Appeal: 11-4002

Document: 29

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SPENCER
Cooper,

TYRONE

WEBB,

a/k/a

Stanley

Cooper,

a/k/a

Corey

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00014-RBS-DEM-1)

Submitted:

August 25, 2011

Decided:

September 29, 2011

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen A. Hudgins, STEPHEN A. HUDGINS, PC, Poquoson, Virginia,
for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Scott
W. Putney, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, and Andrew E.
Behrns, Third Year Law Student, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM & MARY,
Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4002

Document: 29

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Spencer Tyrone Webb appeals his convictions following
a jury trial and the district court’s denial of his motion for a
judgment of acquittal.

The jury acquitted Webb on eight counts,

but

fourteen

convicted

him

firearms charges.

on

counts

of

robbery,

drug,

and

On appeal, Webb attacks the credibility of

the witnesses, questioning whether the evidence was sufficient
to support his convictions.

Webb also challenges the admission

of statements of co-conspirators.

We affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a motion for
judgment of acquittal de novo.

United States v. Green, 599 F.3d

360, 367 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 271 (2010).
are

obligated

to

sustain

a

guilty

verdict

“if,

viewing

We
the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the
verdict is supported by ‘substantial evidence.’”

United States

v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006) (citations 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 citation omitted).
A

defendant

challenging

evidence faces a heavy burden.

the

sufficiency

of

the

United States v. Beidler, 110

F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997).

Furthermore, “[t]he jury, not

the reviewing court, weighs the credibility of the evidence and
2

Appeal: 11-4002

Document: 29

Date Filed: 09/29/2011

Page: 3 of 3

resolves any conflicts in the evidence presented.”

Beidler, 110

F.3d at 1067 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare
case where the prosecution’s failure is clear.”

Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the
record and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support
Webb’s convictions.

We also reject Webb’s argument that the

statements of co-conspirators constituted inadmissible hearsay
evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3