United States v. Wells , 333 F. App'x 781 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC V. WELLS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00215-RLW-1)
Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: June 12, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David R. Lett, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J.
Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Michael A. Jagels,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric V. Wells, Jr., appeals his conviction by a jury
of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006); and one count of
possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (2006).
We affirm.
Wells does not challenge the marijuana conviction on
appeal. He argues only that the district court erred in denying
his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the gun charge because
the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of a motion
for a judgment of acquittal. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d
681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). In conducting such a review, we are
obliged to sustain a guilty verdict if, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, the verdict is
supported by substantial evidence. United States v. Burgos, 94
F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citing Glasser v.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)). 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.’”
Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693 (quoting Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862). We
“must consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and
allow the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences
2
from the facts proven to those sought to be established.”
United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do
not assess the credibility of the witnesses and assume that the
jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of
the Government. United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 519 (2008). We “can reverse a
conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the prosecution’s
failure is clear.” United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394
(4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
In order to establish a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1), the Government must prove the defendant was a
convicted felon; he knowingly possessed the firearm; and the
firearm traveled in interstate commerce. United States v.
Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001); United States v.
Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Here, the
parties stipulated that Wells was a convicted felon and that the
firearm had the requisite interstate commerce nexus. The
disputed issue, therefore, is whether the evidence established
that Wells possessed the firearm. Possession may be actual,
constructive, or joint. Gallimore, 247 F.3d at 136-37.
3
At Wells’ trial, two officers testified they saw Wells
toss a gun to another man. When the gun was recovered, the
officers identified it as the same gun they saw Wells discard.
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the
government, we conclude without difficulty that it provided an
ample basis to support the jury’s verdict.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4