United States v. Harrison , 286 F. App'x 75 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5077
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE JOE HARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:07-cr-00552-HFF-1)
Submitted: July 2, 2008 Decided: July 18, 2008
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny E. Watson, Sr., WATSON LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney,
E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Willie Joe Harrison of being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2000), and the district court sentenced him as an armed career
criminal to a 220-month term of imprisonment. Harrison appeals his
conviction on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to
convict him because the Government offered only circumstantial
evidence that he possessed the firearm and that such possession
occurred after he became a convicted felon. Counsel also
questions, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
whether the district court erred by classifying Harrison as an
armed career criminal but states that there are no meritorious
sentencing issues for appeal.* Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny
a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion. United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d
209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006). A jury’s verdict must be upheld on
appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support
it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). “[A]n
appellate court’s reversal of a conviction on grounds of
insufficient evidence should be confined to cases where the
prosecution’s failure is clear.” United States v. Jones, 735 F.2d
*
We have reviewed the claims raised in Harrison’s pro se
supplemental brief and find them to be without merit.
- 2 -
785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). In determining whether the evidence in the record is
substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the government and inquire whether there 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.” United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996)
(en banc). “A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence . . . bears a heavy burden.” United States v. Beidler,
110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence,
we do not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume that
the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of
the government. United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433, 440 (4th
Cir. 2007).
With these standards in mind, we have carefully
considered Harrison’s claims. Our review of the trial testimony
convinces us that the evidence was sufficient to convict Harrison
of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See United States v.
Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (setting forth
elements of § 922(g)(1) offense). Accordingly, the district court
did not err in denying Harrison’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Harrison also asserts, pursuant to Anders, that the
district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by sentencing
- 3 -
him as an armed career criminal because his prior convictions were
not submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
This claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United
States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 351-53 (4th Cir. 2005); see also
United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282 (4th Cir. 2005).
Thus, we find no error in the district court’s classification of
Harrison as an armed career criminal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Harrison’s conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Harrison, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Harrison 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 Harrison.
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 -