United States v. Spell , 150 F. App'x 348 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60015
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS SPELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:04-CR-23
Before GARWOOD, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Spell appeals his jury-trial conviction for knowingly
possessing a computer containing images of child pornography that
had been shipped or transported in interstate commerce by means of
computers.1 Spell’s sole contention on appeal is that the evidence
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
1
The single count indictment alleges that:
“On or about September 25, 2003, in the Northern District
of Mississippi, THOMAS SPELL and JOHN DAVID BAKER,
defendants, aided and abetted by each other, did
knowingly possess a computer containing images of child
at trial was insufficient to support his conviction because the
testimony of certain witnesses was not credible.2
Because Spell unsuccessfully moved for a judgment of acquittal
at the close of the Government’s case and at the close of the
evidence the standard of review in assessing his sufficiency
challenge is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The
testimony and evidence challenged by Spell is not facially such as
to compel the conclusion that no reasonable juror could properly
credit it, and it did not “relate[] to facts the witness[es] could
not possibly have observed or to events which could not have
occurred under the laws of nature.” United States v. De La Rosa,
171 F.3d 215, 221 (5th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we will not disturb the credibility determinations of
the jury. See id.
AFFIRMED.
pornography that had been shipped and transported in
interstate commerce by means of computers, in violation
of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2252A(a)(5)(B)
and 2256(8)(A).”
Named co-defendant Baker pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement,
and testified for the Government.
2
Spell does not contend that the testimony of the Government
witnesses, if believed, together with the exhibits, is insufficient
to support the verdict.
2