US v. Cion Phillips, No. 08-4692 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4692 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CION M. PHILLIPS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00233-RBS-TEM-2) Submitted: March 6, 2009 Decided: April 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Richard Colgan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, D. Monique Broadnax, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cion M. Phillips appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and two counts of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Phillips challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court s refusal to allow him to introduce at trial evidence of his codefendants flight. Finding no error, we affirm. Phillips challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for conspiracy intent to distribute marijuana. court s denial of a Fed. R. and possession with We review de novo a district Crim. P. 29 motion. United States v. Reid, 523 F.3d 310, 317 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 663 (2008). A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). The verdict of a jury must be sustained favorable to if, the viewing prosecution, substantial evidence. 216 (4th Cir. the 2006) evidence the in verdict the is light most supported by United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, (citations omitted). [S]ubstantial evidence [i]s 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. 2 Id. Furthermore, [t]he jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the credibility of the evidence presented. and resolves any conflicts in the evidence 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). With these standards reviewed the trial transcript. evidence Burgos, supports 94 F.3d the jury s 849, 857-58, in mind, we have thoroughly Our review convinces us that the verdict. 873 (discussing elements of offenses). (4th See United Cir. 1996) States (en v. banc) We therefore find that the district court did not err in denying Phillips Rule 29 motion. Phillips also challenges the district court s refusal to allow him to introduce at trial evidence of his codefendants flight. The district court relied on United States v. Bollin, 264 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2001), in excluding the evidence. Bollin, we held that, while a codefendant s flight may In be relevant to show the guilt of the codefendant, it does not tend to prove the innocence of the defendant where . . . there can be more than one guilty party. Id. at 413. In light of Bollin, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence. See United States v. Hedgepeth, Cir. 418 F.3d 411, 418-19 standard of review). 3 (4th 2005) (stating Accordingly, dispense with oral we affirm argument Phillips because the convictions. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.
