US v. Tyson Anderson, No. 09-4656 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4656 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYSON ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-jpj-pms-9) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 13, 2010 Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Gregory Phillips, PHILLIPS & PHILLIPS, Salem, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Tyson Anderson of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006). The district court sentenced Anderson to eighteen months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Anderson argues that there was insufficient evidence to support district court s the decision convictions. to judgment of acquittal de novo. 209, 216 (4th sufficiency of Cir. the deny Rule court 29 reviews motion for a a United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 2006). evidence a This A defendant faces a challenging heavy burden. the United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). The verdict of a jury must be sustained if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supported by substantial evidence. (citations omitted). reasonable finder the verdict is Smith, 451 F.3d at 216 Substantial evidence is evidence that a of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. omitted). Id. (internal quotation marks and citation Furthermore, [t]he jury, 2 not the reviewing court, weighs the credibility of the evidence conflicts in the evidence presented. and resolves any 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). In order to prove that Anderson conspired to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, the Government needed to show (1) an agreement between two or more persons, (2) that Anderson knew of the agreement, and (3) that Anderson knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citations omitted). However, the Government need not make direct this conspiracy showing may Id. at 858. be through proved wholly evidence. by In circumstantial fact, a evidence. A conspiracy therefore may be inferred from the circumstances presented at trial. Id. the the Government must prove all of Furthermore, although elements listed above beyond a reasonable doubt, [c]ircumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, provided the summation of the evidence permits a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. 3 In distribute, order the to establish Government had possession to prove with beyond a intent to reasonable doubt that Anderson (1) knowingly, (2) possessed the cocaine base, (3) with the intent to distribute it. 873. Possession can be actual or Burgos, 94 F.3d at constructive. Id. Furthermore, [l]ike conspiracy, [c]onstructive possession may be established by either circumstantial or direct evidence. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the Government provided substantial evidence from which the jury could conclude that Anderson was guilty of the offenses for which he was convicted. See id. at 862 ( [D]eterminations of credibility are within the sole province of the jury and are not susceptible to judicial review. ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
