United States of America v. Cion M. Phillips

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

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 and possession with
intent to distribute marijuana. We review de novo a district
court’s denial of a Fed. R. 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 “if, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, the verdict is supported by
substantial evidence.” United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209,
216 (4th Cir. 2006) (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.” Id. Furthermore,
2

-- 2 of 4 --

“[t]he jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the credibility of
the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the evidence
presented.” 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 in mind, we have thoroughly
reviewed the trial transcript. Our review convinces us that the
evidence supports the jury’s verdict. See United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857-58, 873 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)
(discussing elements of offenses). 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. In
Bollin, we held that, while a codefendant’s flight may 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, 418 F.3d 411, 418-19 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
standard of review).
3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Accordingly, we affirm Phillips’ convictions. 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

-- 4 of 4 --