United States v. O'Dell ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4440
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MATTHEW O’DELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CR-04-364)
Submitted: December 19, 2005 Decided: January 25, 2006
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lana M. Manitta, MARTIN & ARIF, Springfield, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, James L.
Trump, Assistant United States Attorney, Kevin R. Gingras, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Matthew O’Dell was convicted of
one count of possession of a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) (2000). O’Dell challenges the
admission of the firearm at issue and the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm.
O’Dell asserts that the district court erred by admitting
the firearm into evidence because the Government failed to offer
sufficient authentication. We review evidentiary rulings for an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Jones, 356 F.3d 529, 535
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 952 (2004). “Federal Rule of
Evidence 901 requires that a party introducing evidence establish
the authenticity of its evidence by demonstrating that ‘the matter
in question is what its proponent claims.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R.
Evid. 901(a)). Our review of the trial transcript leads us to
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Although there was an interruption in the Government’s possession
of the firearm, the Government presented sufficient testimonial
evidence to authenticate the proffered firearm as the firearm
O’Dell unlawfully possessed. See United States v. Ricco, 52 F.3d
58, 61-62 (4th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he ‘chain of custody’ is not an
iron-clad requirement, and the fact of a ‘missing link’ does not
prevent the admission of real evidence, so long as there is
sufficient proof that the evidence is what it purports to be and
- 2 -
has not been altered in any material respect.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Next, O’Dell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
resulting in his conviction. A defendant challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence “bears a heavy burden.” United States
v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
To determine if there was sufficient evidence to support a
conviction, this court considers whether, taking the evidence in
the light most favorable to the Government, substantial evidence
supports the jury’s verdict. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942) (citation omitted); United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d
476, 495 (4th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). This court reviews
both direct and circumstantial evidence, and permits the
“[G]overnment 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) (citations omitted).
Witness credibility is within the sole province of the jury, and
this court will not reassess the credibility of testimony. United
States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989) (citations
omitted). Further, the uncorroborated testimony of a single
witness may be sufficient evidence of guilt, even if the witness is
an accomplice, a co-defendant, or an informant. See United States
v. Wilson, 115 F.3d 1185, 1189-90 (4th Cir. 1997).
- 3 -
Here, there was ample evidence on which the jury could
convict O’Dell. Because the parties stipulated to two of the three
elements of the underlying offense, the only issue was whether
O’Dell actually possessed a firearm. Fairfax County Detective
Kenneth Larson testified unequivocally that, on January 9, 2004,
O’Dell did possess a .22 caliber pistol, which he personally gave
to Detective Larson. Detective Larson’s testimony stands
unrefuted.
Accordingly, we affirm O’Dell’s conviction. 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 -