United States v. Yokimo Antuan Zaldivar , 327 F. App'x 833 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-14415 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 5, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 08-20191-CR-JLK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
YOKIMO ANTUAN ZALDIVAR,
Defendant–Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 5, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Yokimo Antuan Zaldivar appeals his conviction for being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Zaldivar
argues that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty.
“We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” United States v.
Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000). This evidence can be either direct
or circumstantial. United States v. Wilson, 183 F.3d 1291, 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).
The evidence is deemed sufficient if a reasonable factfinder could have found that
it established that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United
States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354, 1364–65 (11th Cir. 2001). On appeal, all
reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the jury’s verdict. Id. The jury has the
exclusive power to determine the credibility of witnesses, and we must defer to a
jury’s reasonable credibility determinations. United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d
1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 1999).
To sustain a substantive felon in possession conviction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1), the government must prove: “(1) that the defendant was a convicted
felon, (2) that the defendant was in knowing possession of a firearm, and (3) that
the firearm was in or affecting interstate commerce.” United States v. Deleveaux,
205 F.3d 1292, 1296–97 (11th Cir. 2000).
Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we discern no reversible
2
error. The only element that is being disputed on appeal is whether Zaldivar had
knowing possession of a firearm. A police officer testified that: (1) he saw the
handle of a gun in Zaldivar's hand; (2) after seeing the police officer, Zaldivar went
back into his apartment, knelt next to a pile of clothes, and proceeded to make
strange motions with his body while being located next to the pile of clothes; and
(3) police officers then discovered a gun inside that pile of clothes. Therefore, we
find that the evidence was sufficient to convict Zaldivar, and, accordingly, we
affirm his conviction.
AFFIRMED.
3