US v. Jeffrey Banks, No. 12-4562 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4562 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY LAMONT BANKS, a/k/a P, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-4566 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRIAN LEE MORTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:11-cr-00099-HCM-FBS-1; 4:11-cr-00099HCM-FBS-2) Submitted: January 8, 2013 Decided: Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. January 11, 2013 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James J. Whitus, ALBO & OBLON, LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Robert Bruce Jones, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellants. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In and Brian several these Lee consolidated Morton heroin appeals, challenge distribution their offenses, Jeffrey Lamont convictions arguing evidence was insufficient to convict them. by only Banks jury that of the We have reviewed the record and affirm. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden because the jury s verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. Cir. 2010) United States v. Young, 609 F.3d 348, 355 (4th (internal citation, quotation marks and emphasis omitted). [S]ubstantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder fact of could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2009). United States v. Cameron, 573 F.3d 179, 183 (4th Cir. (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review is thus limited to determining whether, viewing the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence adduced at trial could support any rational determination of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Young, 609 F.3d at 355 (internal quotation marks, alteration and ellipsis omitted). Banks and Morton claim that their convictions unsupported by sufficient evidence in two respects. 3 were First, they contend that the Government failed to prove that their conspiracy offense involved a kilogram or more of heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(i) (2006). See To this end, Banks and Morton rely on United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756 (4th Cir. 2010), where we observed that the trier of fact may not simply guess at activity the or magnitude base a or frequency conclusion as of the to unknown criminal amount of involved in a conspiracy upon [u]nbridled speculation. 768-69. But the circumstances presented in Hickman drugs Id. at are not remotely similar to those presented here. In fact, one of the Government s supplied witnesses testified that he Banks and Morton with heroin, knew that they were distributing it, and was confident that he had sold them more than one kilogram of heroin during the course of the conspiracy. The Appellants assertion that no rational jury could have concluded that they conspired to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin is therefore baseless. The Appellants also argue that the Government failed to prove that either of them intended to distribute the bags of heroin with which they were caught when arrested, rather than use them for their own use. (b)(1)(C) (2006). See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and But this round of insufficiency arguments is as infirm as the first. Although the Appellants claim that the jury should have concluded that the heroin with which each of 4 them was arrested was possessed only for personal use, the jury simply found otherwise, on the basis of an ample record. See Young, 609 F.3d at 355; United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 519 (4th Cir. 2005). These claims, too, are therefore entirely without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court. We legal before dispense contentions this court with oral argument are adequately and argument because presented will not in aid the the facts the and material 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.
