United States of America v.  Muhammad S. Habeebullah

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-4086 
MUHAMMAD S. HABEEBULLAH,
Defendant-Appellant. 
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-01-237)
Submitted: August 28, 2002
Decided: September 19, 2002
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL
Andrea C. Long, BOONE, BEALE, COSBY & LONG, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, N.
George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Muhammad Habeebullah appeals his 110-month sentence and con-
victions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and and to
distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 2001), and attempted possession with intent to
distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000).
On appeal, Habeebullah challenges his convictions based on the
sufficiency of the evidence. First, he contends that the evidence
against him is purely circumstantial. Second, he argues the Govern-
ment failed to prove that there was at least one other person who con-
spired with him to distribute cocaine, or that he knew that any
package ever sent to him contained cocaine. Third, he avers the evi-
dence could not support his attempt conviction because he never
touched the only package proven to contain cocaine.
The relevant question on appeal is not whether the court is con-
vinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather whether the evi-
dence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government,
was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Stewart, 256 F.3d
231, 250 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 633 (2001) (citing United
States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996)).
After careful review of the record, we conclude the Government
presented sufficient evidence supporting Habeebullah’s convictions.
We specifically note that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient
to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction. Burgos, 94 F.3d at 857-
58. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.
AFFIRMED
2 UNITED STATES v. HABEEBULLAH

-- 2 of 2 --