United States v. Sebastian Sanchez Dubose , 259 F. App'x 279 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                           [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    DEC 19, 2007
    No. 07-12047                 THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 05-00128-CR-WS
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    SEBASTIAN SANCHEZ DUBOSE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Alabama
    _________________________
    (December 19, 2007)
    Before DUBINA, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant Sebastian DuBose (“Dubose”) appeals his convictions for
    carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119, and possession of a firearm during a
    crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). DuBose’s convictions arise
    out of the carjacking and killing of Michael Rodgers (“Rodgers”), which was
    witnessed by Lois Rodgers, the victim’s mother, and LaDonna Brown (“Brown”).
    DuBose argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict
    because the government failed to prove that he was present during the commission
    of the crime. Dubose asserts that none of the witnesses were able to place him at
    the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. He notes that there was no physical
    evidence connecting him to the crime, and he also contends that the witness
    testimony placing him in the area earlier that night was not enough for the jury to
    infer his participation in the crime. DuBose emphasizes that Brown’s testimony
    was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the testimony of Lois Rodgers.
    “We review the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial de novo. The
    evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government, with all
    inferences and credibility choices drawn in the government’s favor. The question
    to ask is whether a reasonable jury could have concluded that the evidence
    established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
    LeCroy, 
    441 F.3d 914
    , 924 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 
    127 S. Ct. 2096
    (2007).
    Credibility determinations are the sole province of the jury. United States v.
    2
    Chastain, 
    198 F.3d 1338
    , 1351 (11th Cir. 1999).
    After careful consideration of the briefs of the parties, and thorough review
    of the record, we find no reversible error. DuBose does not contest whether the
    evidence supported the jury’s finding that Rodgers’s attackers fulfilled the
    elements of carjacking and of possessing a firearm during a crime of violence;
    rather, Dubose only contests whether the evidence showed that DuBose was one of
    those attackers. Brown witnessed the attack and positively identified DuBose as
    one of the attackers. While Brown’s testimony was not entirely consistent with
    other testimony, these inconsistencies go to credibility, and it is not within our
    province to re-weigh the jury’s credibility determinations. 
    Id. Thus, Brown’s
    identification of Dubose provided sufficient evidence for the jury’s verdict.
    Therefore, we affirm Dubose’s convictions.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-12047

Citation Numbers: 259 F. App'x 279

Judges: Dubina, Marcus, Per Curiam, Wilson

Filed Date: 12/19/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023