United States v. Gilliam

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4715
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TROY GILLIAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (2:05-cr-00031-FL)
Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 3, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Vidalia Patterson, Research and
Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George
E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine
Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy Gilliam appeals his jury conviction and fifty-seven
month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. Gilliam asserts there
was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
To determine if there was sufficient evidence to support
a conviction, this Court considers whether taking the evidence in
the light most favorable to the Government, substantial evidence
supports the jury’s verdict. United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476,
495 (4th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence is defined as “that
evidence which ‘a reasonable finder of fact could accept as
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Newsome, 322
F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94
F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). We review both the
direct and circumstantial evidence and permit “the [G]overnment the
benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those
sought to be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d
1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
Gilliam maintains that without his alleged statement,
there is not sufficient evidence to establish his possession of the
gun found in the car in which he was a passenger. Gilliam further
asserts that the officers who reported that Gilliam admitted the
- 2 -
gun was his were not credible because their reports could not be
corroborated.
Possession may be actual or constructive. United
States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 878 (4th Cir. 1992). “A person has
constructive possession of a narcotic if he knows of its presence
and has the power to exercise dominion and control over it.”
United States v. Schocket, 753 F.2d 336, 340 (4th Cir. 1985).
Possession “may be established by direct or circumstantial
evidence.” Id.; United States v. Wright, 991 F.2d 1182, 1187 (4th
Cir. 1993). The gun in question was found where Gilliam was seated
in the car. He therefore had the power to exercise dominion and
control over it. The Government relied on Gilliam’s alleged
statement identifying the gun as his to establish possession. An
attack on witness credibility is not reviewable on appeal. United
States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). The jury
found the officer’s testimony credible and convicted Gilliam
accordingly. We find, viewing all of the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Government, that there was sufficient
evidence for the jury to convict Gilliam.
Accordingly, we affirm Gilliam’s conviction and sentence.
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.
- 3 -
AFFIRMED
- 4 -