United States v. Chisolm , 280 F. App'x 260 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4243
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TROY LAMONT CHISOLM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:05-cr-00428)
Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 3, 2008
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston
Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy Lamont Chisolm was convicted by a jury of possession
of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. §
922(g) (2000), and was sentenced to 210 months imprisonment.
Chisolm timely appealed. His attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
identifying no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning
whether the district court erred by denying Chisolm’s Fed. R. Crim.
P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. Chisolm has also filed a
supplemental pro se brief in which he claims that the government
failed to meet its burden of proving that the gun traveled in
interstate commerce and that he was denied effective assistance of
counsel.
We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a
Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Smith,
451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 197 (2006).
Where, as here, the motion was based on a claim of insufficient
evidence, “[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). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this
court “do[es] not review the credibility of the witnesses and
assume[s] the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in
favor of the government.” United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313
- 2 -
(4th Cir. 2002). The court “must consider circumstantial as well
as direct evidence, and allow the government the benefit of all
reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be
established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th
Cir. 1982).
In order to convict Chisolm under § 922(g)(1), the
government had to establish that: (1) Chisolm previously had been
convicted of a felony, (2) he knowingly possessed the firearm, and
(3) the possession was in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce. See United States v. Gilbert, 430 F.3d 215, 218 (4th
Cir. 2005). Chisolm stipulated to the first and third elements at
trial; accordingly, the only element remaining for the jury to
determine was whether Chisolm possessed the weapon and ammunition
at issue. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government and resolving all contradictions in the testimony in
favor of the government, the evidence showed that Chisolm was
arrested after a high-speed chase which ended with him crashing
into a tree. A 9mm semiautomatic pistol and its ammunition were
found in Chisolm’s vehicle in which he was the sole occupant. We
find that jurors could reasonably conclude that Chisolm actually or
constructively possessed the gun and ammunition.
In his supplemental pro se brief, Chisolm also asserts
that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel are not generally cognizable on
- 3 -
direct appeal unless ineffective assistance conclusively appears on
the record. See United States v. James, 337 F.3d 387, 391 (4th
Cir. 2003). Chisolm fails to make this showing. Accordingly, we
decline to consider this issue on direct appeal. Should Chisolm
wish to do so, he may pursue this claim in an appropriate motion
for post-conviction relief.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Chisolm’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client. 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 -