United States v. Kevin Johnson , 499 F. App'x 257 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4258
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN JERMAINE JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00703-BEL-1)
Submitted: November 26, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Lease, SMITH, LEASE & GOLDSTEIN, LLC, Rockville,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Brooke Carey, Assistant United States Attorney,
Kenneth Clark, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Jermaine Johnson appeals his conviction for
possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006), for which he was sentenced to 216 months’
imprisonment. Johnson challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence, the propriety of the jury instructions, the
constitutionality of the statute, and the district court’s
evidentiary rulings. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Johnson asserts that § 922(g)(1), as interpreted,
exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause because
the fact that a firearm has crossed a state line is insufficient
to demonstrate that the firearm affected interstate commerce.
Our binding precedent holds otherwise. See United States v.
Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 138 (4th Cir. 2001). Because a panel
of this court may not overrule the precedent set by a prior
panel, United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n.3 (4th Cir.
2010), Johnson’s argument must fail. See, e.g., United
States v. Smoot, 690 F.3d 215, 222-24 (4th Cir. 2012). Further,
because the statute is valid as interpreted, the district
court’s jury instructions were not erroneous. See id. at 223.
We review the denial of a motion for acquittal based
on insufficient evidence de novo. United States v. Alerre, 430
F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). The verdict of a jury must be
sustained “if there is substantial evidence, taking the view
2
most favorable to the Government, to support it.” United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 244 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted). “[I]f the evidence
supports different, reasonable interpretations, the jury decides
which interpretation to believe.” United States v. Murphy, 35
F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). After reviewing the record, we
conclude that the Government presented sufficient evidence that
the firearm had traveled across a state line to permit the jury
to find a required element of the offense. We thus conclude
that Johnson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is
without merit.
We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Hodge, 354 F.3d 305, 312 (4th Cir. 2004).
Although Johnson argues that his exculpatory statement was
admissible, we conclude that it was not. See, e.g., United
States v. Wilkerson, 84 F.3d 692, 696 (4th Cir. 1996). We
therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying his request for its admission.
Johnson finally argues that the district court erred
when it denied his motion for a mistrial based on an
inadmissible reference during testimony for which the district
court provided a curative instruction. The denial of a mistrial
is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Dorsey, 45 F.3d 809, 817 (4th Cir. 1995). To show “an abuse of
3
discretion, the defendant must show prejudice.” Id. In
general, where there is no Government misconduct and a curative
instruction is given, a mistrial is not warranted. Id. at 817-
18. We conclude that Johnson’s challenge is without merit
because the Government did not purposefully elicit the
challenged statement, the district court provided a curative
instruction, and there was no prejudice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4