UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 99-4822

JERMAINE LAMONT WOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CR-99-144)

Submitted: July 27, 2000

Decided: August 14, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Janipher W. Robinson, ROBINSON & GREENE, Richmond, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, John S.
Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Jermaine Lamont Wood of conspiring with
Charles Pierce to possess with the intent to distribute crack cocaine,
conspiring to use and carry firearms during and in relation to the drug
trafficking offense, and using and carrying a firearm during the drug
trafficking offense, during the course of which Wood shot and killed
James Cooper. Wood appeals only the two convictions involving fire-
arms, alleging insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that
the offenses occurred during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime. We affirm.

Wood argues there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to
prove Cooper's murder occurred during a drug trafficking offense or
to prove he conspired with Pierce to carry and use firearms during a
drug trafficking offense. When assessing the sufficiency of the evi-
dence of a criminal conviction on direct review,"[t]he verdict of a
jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view
most favorable to the Government, to support it." Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).

The jury convicted Wood of the drug trafficking crime that is the
underlying drug trafficking offense in the two convictions Wood con-
tests.* Wood does not contest that conviction, but asserts the drug
trafficking was "incidental" to the other crimes for which he was con-
victed. We disagree and find there was sufficient evidence that he
committed the other crimes during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime. See United States v. Crump, 120 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 1997).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government,
we conclude there was sufficient evidence supporting the jury's ver-
dicts.
_________________________________________________________________

*Wood was convicted of Counts One, Three, and Four of the indict-
ment. Count One charged him with conspiring to possess with the intent
to distribute crack cocaine and was the predicate drug trafficking offense
in Counts Three and Four.

                    2
We therefore affirm Wood's convictions and sentences. We dis-
pense 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

                    3
