United States v. Cox ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4237
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARION COX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00074-ALL)
Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 20, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph Marshall Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH MARSHALL LEE,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marion Cox appeals from his conviction for possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On
appeal, he contends that there was insufficient evidence to show
that he possessed the firearm in question. We affirm.
We “have defined ‘substantial evidence’ as ‘evidence that
a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient
to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.’” United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir.
2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1925 (2006). We “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). If 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).
Because Cox stipulated to the other elements of the
offense, the only contested issue at trial was whether he possessed
the handgun. Possession may be actual, constructive, or joint.
United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136-37 (4th Cir. 2001).
“[T]o establish constructive possession, the government must
produce evidence showing ownership, dominion or control over the
contraband itself or the premises or vehicle in which the
- 2 -
contraband is concealed.” United States v. Blue, 957 F.2d 106, 107
(4th Cir. 1992). In addition, while a conviction cannot rest
entirely on an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession, the
extrinsic corroborating proof need only tend to show the
trustworthiness of the confession. See United States v. Norman,
415 F.3d 466, 470-71 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding that, once the
confession is sufficiently corroborated, the confession as a whole
is admissible, and some elements of the offense may be proven
entirely on the basis of the confession), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.
1087 (2006).
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government, the trial testimony showed that Officer Mozingo,
responding to a call involving a firearm, arrived at 1121 Pamlico
Street in Mecklenburg County. He was waved down by Steve Mason and
Cox was standing on the porch. Officer Mozingo asked Cox to come
down from the porch and wait by the Officer’s car, which he did.
Officer Mozingo then recovered from the porch a firearm in an
unzipped bag within arm’s reach of where Cox had been standing.
After Officer Mozingo recovered the firearm, Cox fled the scene.
When he was arrested, he apologized for pointing a gun at Mason.
We find that the Government presented sufficient evidence
to support the trustworthiness of Cox’s admission to the police and
that sufficient evidence supported Cox’s conviction. Thus, we
affirm. We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and
- 3 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -