United States v. Dickerson

6 F. App'x 166
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 26, 2001
Docket00-4486
StatusUnpublished

This text of 6 F. App'x 166 (United States v. Dickerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Dickerson, 6 F. App'x 166 (4th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

*167 OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Chantez Tyrell Dickerson appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West Supp.2000). We affirm. Dickerson contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) conviction. When reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, “we must determine whether there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to support the verdict.” United States v. Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 238 (4th Cir.1998). “[S]ubstantial 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.” United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc). When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses nor resolve any conflicts in the evidence presented at trial. Id.

We have reviewed the record and briefs and find sufficient evidence to support Dickerson’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 F. App'x 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dickerson-ca4-2001.