United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lee C. Dyess, A/k/a Corky, Defendant-appellant, 25 F.3d 1041 (4th Cir. 1994)

Lee C. Dyess appeals the district court judgment finding him guilty of four violations of federal drug laws. We affirm.

Dyess first complains that the evidence was insufficient to show that he conspired to distribute crack cocaine. However, the government showed through eyewitness testimony that Dyess, who had no drugs at the beginning of the transaction, entered an apartment containing other people and returned with crack. A later search of the apartment revealed the paraphernalia of crack preparation and crack residue. This evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Dyess conspired with others to distribute crack out of the apartment. United States v. Bell, 954 F.2d 232, 236 (4th Cir. 1992).^* 

Dyess next complains that the evidence was insufficient to show that he distributed crack because the confidential informant who testified against him was inherently incredible. This contention is without merit. Credibility determinations are for the jury, not the appellate court, to make. United States v. Locklear, 829 F.2d 1314, 1317 (4th Cir. 1987).

Finally, Dyess complains that the evidence was insufficient to show that he later possessed crack with intent to distribute it. A police officer testified at trial that he saw Dyess appear to throw to the ground a bag later found to contain distributional amounts of crack. Again, the evidence was sufficient, if the jury found the officer credible, to establish Dyess's possession of the crack. Thus, Dyess's final claim of error must also fail.

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