The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-4302•United States of America v. Thomas George McLean
01-4302Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 5, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4302
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS GEORGE MCLEAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-00-160)
Submitted: September 10, 2001 Decided: November 5, 2001
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Esther J. Windmueller, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth
E. Melson, United States Attorney, Laura A. Colombell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas McLean appeals his jury convictions for conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base,
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and possession
of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 844, and 846
(West 1999 & Supp. 2001). The court subsequently sentenced McLean
to 240 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, McLean attacks the suffi-
ciency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We have
reviewed the record, and viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government, we find sufficient evidence to support
McLean’s convictions. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,
80 (1942).
Accordingly, we affirm McLean’s convictions and sentence. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.