United States v. Williams ( 2003 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50546
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KENYON LAMONTE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-00-CR-55-1
March 7, 2003
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In his instant appeal, Kenyon Lamonte Williams challenges only
the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for being
an armed career criminal in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Because he did not move for
a judgment of acquittal below, review “is limited to determining
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice,” which is
found only where “‘the record is devoid of evidence pointing to
guilt or contains evidence on a key element of the offense [that
is] so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.’” United States
v. McIntosh, 280 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
Williams argues only that there has been a manifest
miscarriage of justice because there was no evidence to show that
he knowingly possessed the gun that was recovered from his duffel
bag. He points to the fact that his fingerprints were not found on
the gun, that he did not own the car in which the gun was found,
and that others had access to the bag containing the gun.
Contrary to Williams’s assertion, the record contains
sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that he
constructively possessed the gun. Williams’s ex-wife testified
that the night before Williams’s arrest, she had found the gun
wrapped in Williams’s clothes, and concealed in a bag that he had
packed and over which he had exercised control, giving the bag to
his sister to put in her car. Williams’s sister and mother
similarly testified that Williams exercised control over the bag
containing the gun. Both testified that after his arrest, Williams
called them each from jail and asked them to lie on his behalf in
an attempt to invalidate the search that had uncovered the gun.
Such testimony constituted additional circumstantial evidence that
Williams knowingly possessed the gun. Cf. United States v.
2
Fortenberry, 919 F.2d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 1990).
Williams, however, ignores the testimony of his mother and
sister in arguing that the only evidence linking him to the gun
came from his ex-wife. He contends that because of her criminal
history and because collateral portions of her testimony might be
construed as contradictory to the testimony of Officer Carlile,
another prosecution witness, she was not a credible witness and
that her testimony was thus insufficient to prove possession. “The
jury is solely responsible for determining the weight and
credibility of the evidence.” United States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d
600, 603 (5th Cir. 1994). The jury was free to credit the
testimony of Williams’s ex-wife, and this court will not disturb
the jury’s credibility determinations. United States v. Wise, 221
F.3d 140, 147 (5th Cir. 2000). Williams’s argument regarding his
ex-wife’s credibility is thus unavailing.
Rather than being devoid of evidence pointing to guilt, the
record clearly contains sufficient evidence that Williams knowingly
possessed the gun that was recovered from his bag. Williams,
therefore, has not demonstrated that his conviction on the evidence
presented was a manifest miscarriage of justice, and his conviction
is therefore
AFFIRMED.
3