United States v. Mathurim , 198 F. App'x 337 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4156
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MCALLEN MATHURIM, a/k/a McAllen Mathurin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:05-cr-00095-HCM)
Submitted: August 18, 2006 Decided: September 6, 2006
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sterling H. Weaver, Sr., WEAVER LAW OFFICES, Portsmouth, Virginia,
for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Andrew M.
Robbins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
McAllen Mathurim appeals his conviction of one count of
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). On appeal, Mathurim argues
that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of
acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the
jury’s verdict. We affirm.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064,
1067 (4th Cir. 1997). “[A]n appellate court’s reversal of a
conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence should be confined
to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United
States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984). A jury’s
verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence
in the record to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S.
60, 80 (1942). In determining whether the evidence in the record
is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the government, and inquire whether there is evidence that a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient
to support a conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th
Cir. 1996) (en banc). We do not review the credibility of the
witnesses and assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in
- 2 -
the testimony in favor of the government. United States v. Romer,
148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998).
The elements of a violation of § 922(g)(1) are that:
“(1) the defendant previously had been convicted of a crime
punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year; (2) the
defendant knowingly possessed . . . the firearm; and (3) the
possession was in or affecting commerce, because the firearm had
traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.” United States v.
Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Mathurim
stipulated to a prior felony conviction and to the interstate or
foreign commerce element, disputing only the knowing possession
element. Possession may be actual or constructive. United
States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 878 (4th Cir. 1992). A person has
constructive possession of an item if he knows of its presence and
exercises or has the power to exercise dominion and control over
it. United States v. Scott, 424 F.3d 431, 435 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 779 (2005). Possession may be established by
circumstantial evidence. United States v. Nelson, 6 F.3d 1049,
1053 (4th Cir. 1993). Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to
prove that Mathurim possessed the firearm in question.
We therefore affirm Mathurim’s conviction and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -