US v. Wallace Brown, No. 08-5006 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-5006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WALLACE BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00437-CCB-1) Submitted: November 24, 2009 Decided: January 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allen H. Orenberg, THE ORENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C., North Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Mushtaq Z. Gunja, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wallace for two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. On appeal, Brown Brown appeals challenges the from his convictions sufficiency of the evidence supporting his jury convictions and the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm. To establish a violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1) (2006), the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) knowingly; (2) possessed a narcotic controlled substance; (3) with the intent to distribute it. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 209 (4th Cir. 1999). A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence bears a heavy burden. (4th Cir. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 1997) appellate (internal court s insufficient reversal evidence quotation of should be a 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984) omitted). conviction confined prosecution s failure is clear. F.2d marks to [A]n on grounds of cases where the United States v. Jones, 735 (internal quotation marks omitted). With regard to the charge arising from the cocaine sale at Tivoly insufficient Avenue, because he Brown contends provided 2 alibi that the evidence evidence and was evidence regarding a potential police motive for fabricating evidence. * However, the jury was free to reject Brown s alibi evidence and allegations of police misconduct. In convicting Brown, the jury plainly credited the testimony of the officers, and we do not review the jury s credibility determinations on appeal. See United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 283 (4th Cir. 2007). Turning to the charge arising from the cocaine found in Brown s apartment, Brown asserts contradicted that of the police officers. that his testimony However, again, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses, and we must assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in testimony in favor of the Government. United States v. United Med. & Surgical Supply Corp., 989 F.2d 1390 (4th Cir. 1993). Finally, Brown contends that, even assuming the cocaine in the apartment belonged to him, there was insufficient evidence of his intent to distribute. However, we conclude that the drug paraphernalia found in Brown s apartment, the weight of the drugs, and the fact that officers observed Brown conducting a drug deal provided more than sufficient evidence to satisfy the Government s burden of proving intent to distribute. See United States v. Fisher, 912 F.2d 728, 729-31 (4th Cir. 1990) * Brown also asserts that the officers testimony conflicted regarding the timeline of events. However, a review of the record does not show a concrete conflict. 3 (finding sufficient evidence of possession with intent to distribute 1.52 grams of cocaine where cocaine was packaged for individual sale and was found in proximity to firearms). Accordingly, the Government s evidence was sufficient to support the jury s guilty verdict on both counts. Next, Brown asserts that the district court committed clear error Brown s hearing, at in the the preferring hearing district on the police the court motion was officer s to faced testimony suppress. with a At to the credibility question--the officer testified that he witnessed Brown conduct a drug deal, and Brown testified that he was not there. The officer s testimony was corroborated by the cocaine found in the buyer s possession, as well as the cocaine found in Brown s apartment and the currency found in Brown s car. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we particularly defer to a district court s credibility determinations, for it is the role of the district court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pre-trial motion to suppress. United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1312 (2009). When the district court has denied a suppression motion, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. 564 F.3d 346, 349 (4th Cir. 2009). 4 See United States v. Neely, Viewing the evidence under this standard, there was no clear error in the district court s credibility determination. Accordingly, Brown s challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress is without merit. Based on the foregoing, we affirm Brown s convictions. 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 5
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.
