United States v. Southern , 194 F. App'x 141 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES BOYD SOUTHERN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-157)
Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: August 11, 2006
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Megan J. Schueler, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.
Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Boyd Southern appeals his convictions after a trial
for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2) (2000), and two counts
of knowingly possessing stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(j), 924(a)(2) (2000). Southern contends the evidence was
insufficient to show he had knowledge the firearms were stolen. He
further contends Congress cannot criminalize the possession of
firearms where the only evidence of interstate commence is that the
weapons once moved across state lines. He further contends his
ninety-seven month sentence is unreasonable. Finding no error, we
affirm.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
faces a heavy burden. See United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064,
1067 (4th Cir. 1997). “[A]n appellate court’s reversal of a
conviction on grounds of insufficiency of evidence should be
‘confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.’”
United States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984) (quoting
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978)). In reviewing a
sufficiency challenge, “[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). “[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence that a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient
- 2 -
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).
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not
“weigh the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses.”
United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). Where
the evidence supports differing reasonable interpretations, the
jury decides which interpretation to believe. Id. Furthermore,
“[t]he Supreme Court has admonished that we not examine evidence in
a piecemeal fashion, but consider it in cumulative context.”
Burgos, 94 F.3d at 863 (citations omitted). “The focus of
appellate review, therefore, . . . is on the complete picture,
viewed in context and in the light most favorable to the
Government, that all of the evidence portrayed.” Id.We find there was substantial evidence to support the
finding that Southern had knowledge the firearms were stolen. In
addition, there is no merit to Southern’s challenge to the
interstate nexus requirement. United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d
134, 137-38 (4th Cir. 2001). We also find Southern’s sentence
reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -