United States v. Lynch , 420 F. App'x 253 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4507
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROGER EARL LYNCH, JR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(7:09-cr-00659-HFF-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Earl Lynch, Jr., appeals his conviction and
forty-eight-month sentence after a jury found him guilty of
possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(c) (West 2000 &
Supp. 2010). Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), indicating that he
has examined the record and found no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but indicating that Lynch wishes to challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Lynch
has not filed a pro se supplemental brief despite receiving
notice that he may do so, and the Government declined to file a
responsive brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of a Fed. R. Crim.
P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo. United
States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006). A defendant
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence bears a heavy
burden. United States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 428 (2010). A jury verdict must be
sustained “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, the verdict is supported by ‘substantial
evidence.’” Smith, 451 F.3d at 216. Substantial evidence is
“evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
2
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). “[T]he jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the
credibility of the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the
evidence presented.” Id. at 217 (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for
the rare case where the prosecution’s failure is clear.”
Ashley, 606 F.3d at 138 (internal quotation marks omitted).
To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1),
the Government was required to prove that: (1) Lynch was a
convicted felon; (2) he voluntarily and intentionally possessed
a firearm and ammunition; and (3) the firearm and ammunition
traveled in interstate commerce. See United States v.
Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001). Lynch stipulated
that he was previously convicted of a felony and that the
firearms and ammunition traveled in interstate commerce. Thus,
the Government had only to prove Lynch’s knowing possession.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from
which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
Lynch voluntarily and intentionally possessed the firearm and
ammunition.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
3
requires that counsel inform Lynch, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Lynch requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Lynch. 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