United States of America v. Wilbur Derrick Green

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4857
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILBUR DERRICK GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:06-cr-00031-jlk)
Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David R. Lett, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM:
Wilbur Derrick Green appeals from his conviction for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1000
kilograms of marijuana. Green argues that the Government’s
evidence supports the existence of three separate conspiracies
and that these conspiracies were not interdependent. Green did
not raise this issue below, therefore we review for plain error.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Finding no
error, we affirm.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110
F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). “[A]n appellate court’s
reversal of a conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence
should be confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is
clear.” United States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir.
1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). A jury’s verdict must
be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the
record to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80
(1942). In determining whether the evidence in the record is
substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government and inquire whether there 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
2

-- 2 of 4 --

(4th Cir. 1996). To prove conspiracy to distribute a controlled
substance, the Government must establish: (1) an agreement to
distribute existed between two or more persons; (2) the
defendant knew of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant
knowingly and voluntarily became part of the conspiracy. Id. at
857. With respect to the last element, the Government need not
prove that the defendant knew the particulars of the conspiracy
or all of his co-conspirators. Id. at 858. The evidence need
only establish a slight connection between the defendant and the
conspiracy to support the conviction. United States v. Seni,
662 F.2d 277, 285 n.7 (4th Cir. 1981).
We have reviewed the evidence and find that sufficient
evidence supported the conclusion that Green was involved with a
conspiracy involving 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana. Green
provided assistance to the co-conspirators, was aware of at
least $700,000 in cash possessed by the co-conspirators,
assisted in procuring storage for hundreds of pounds of
marijuana, transported 600 to 800 pounds of marijuana, and
participated in discussions with associates of co-conspirators
about continuing marijuana trafficking. Therefore, there is
evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of Green’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt and there was no plain error.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Accordingly, we affirm Green’s conviction.* 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
* In Green’s reply brief, he notes for the first time that
the judgment reflects that the conspiracy involved marijuana and
cocaine and that the jury only convicted him based on a
marijuana conspiracy. He requests in a footnote that this court
vacate and remand for resentencing or a new trial on this basis.
We see no basis to resentence or grant a new trial due to
clerical error.

-- 4 of 4 --