US v. Shine, No. 05-4353 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4353 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CONSUEGO SHINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-02-161) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: January 30, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Bess Obiorah, LAW OFFICES OF DANIELLE BESS OBIORAH, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, C. Nicks Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Consuego Shine was convicted by a jury for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000), and aiding and abetting the use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (2000). She received a 138-month sentence. On appeal, Shine claims the district court erred when it denied her motion for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of evidence to support the firearm conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. This court reviews the district court s decision to deny a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001). If the motion was based on insufficiency of the evidence, the verdict must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the government, to support it. States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Glasser v. United [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). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does not review the credibility of the witnesses and assumes that the jury resolved contradictions in - 2 - testimony in favor of the government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998). After thoroughly reviewing the parties arguments and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, we find sufficient evidence to support the jury s conviction. Shine s convictions and sentence. 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 - 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.
