US v. Mercer, No. 06-4379 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4379 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINALD WAYNE MERCER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00253-NCT) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 15, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Reginald Wayne Mercer appeals his conviction following a jury trial for knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). Mercer was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. On appeal, Mercer argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, [t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Substantial evidence, in the context of a criminal action, is that evidence a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 862 (4th Cir. 1996). United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction bears a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). We reject Mercer s assertion that his conviction was legally insufficient because the jury did not believe his testimony and instead credited that of the Government s witnesses. Witness credibility is solely within the province of the jury and will not be reassessed on appeal. 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). See United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d As such, this argument is plainly insufficient to meet the heavy burden demanded of a criminal - 2 - defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his criminal conviction. Beidler, 110 F.3d at 1067. Therefore, we affirm Mercer s conviction and sentence. 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 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
