United States v. Brooks ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 22, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30206
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KEVIN LAMAR BROOKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:04-CR-50066
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kevin Lamar Brooks appeals his jury-trial conviction for
being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction.
Because Brooks failed to renew his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29
motion, this court reviews the sufficiency of evidence “not under
the usual standard of review for claims of insufficiency of
evidence but rather under a much stricter standard.” United
States v. Ruiz, 860 F.2d 615, 617 (5th Cir. 1988). The court is
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-30206
-2-
limited to determining “whether there was a manifest miscarriage
of justice.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Brooks argues that the Government did not demonstrate beyond
a reasonable doubt that he actually knew about and possessed the
firearm, which was found between the mattress and box springs of
a bed. However, there was testimony that Brooks, who was
physically present in the residence when the firearm was
discovered by law enforcement officers, admitted that the firearm
was his. There was also evidence that Brooks’s driver’s license
was found in a drawer in the same bedroom as the firearm, and
that mail was sent to Brooks at the residence. The evidence
adduced at trial was sufficient to establish Brooks’s possession
of the firearm. See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 349
(5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.