United States v. Parrott , 234 F. App'x 107 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4442
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEROME PARROTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:05-cr-00058-F)
Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: July 16, 2007
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diane Pereira, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George
E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Jerome Parrott was convicted of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). The district court sentenced Parrott to
120 months in prison. Parrott timely appealed.
Parrott contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction. We review de novo a district court’s
decision to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 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); Smith, 451 F.3d at 216.
“‘[S]ubstantial evidence’ [is] ‘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.’”
Smith, 451 F.3d at 216 (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d
849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). 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 (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
- 2 -
those sought to be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677
F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
In order to convict Parrott under § 922(g)(1), the
government had to establish that “(1) the defendant previously had
been convicted of a [felony] . . . ; (2) the defendant knowingly
possessed . . . the firearm; and (3) the possession was in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce at some point during its
existence.” United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 395 (4th Cir.)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 127
S. Ct. 452 (2006). Parrott challenges only the second element of
his § 922(g)(1) conviction. 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 officers
found Parrott lying face-up and naked under a bed, when an officer
asked him where his gun was he answered that it was under his back,
and when he was lifted off the floor there was a gun under the
small of his back. On the way to the police station, Parrott
remarked that he “should have let loose.” We conclude that the
evidence presented at trial was sufficient to permit a reasonable
fact finder to conclude that Parrott knowingly possessed the
firearm.
Without pointing to any specific error in his own
sentence, Parrott objects to the presumption of reasonableness that
this court affords sentences within the properly calculated
guideline range, citing to United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540(4th Cir. 2005), United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.),
- 3 -
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006), and United States v.
Moreland, 437 F.3d 424 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054(2006). He contends that this presumption is unconstitutional and
amounts to a de facto mandatory guideline scheme that prevents a
district court from properly considering all the sentencing factors
under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). To the
extent that Parrott seeks to have this court reconsider its
holdings in these cases, “a panel of this court cannot overrule,
explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of
this court. Only the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc
can do that.” Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264,
271-72 n.2 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm Parrott’s conviction and sentence.
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 -