US v. Karl Sullivan

Filing 920090604

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4806 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KARL SULLIVAN, a/k/a Adrian Karl Cathey, a/k/a Karl Adrian Cathey, a/k/a Karl Edwards, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00109-RJC-1) Submitted: April 29, 2009 Decided: June 4, 2009 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. Brent Walker, LAW OFFICE OF R. BRENT WALKER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Mark A. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Karl Sullivan appeals his conviction by a jury of one count of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (2006). On appeal, Sullivan argues We affirm. that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. This court reviews de novo a district court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d In conducting such a review, the court is obliged to sustain a guilty verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) United States v. (en banc) (citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)). has "defined `substantial of fact evidence' could as This court that a and `evidence as reasonable finder accept adequate sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" 94 F.3d at 862). Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693 (quoting Burgos, This court "must consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought 2 to be established." 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not assess the credibility of the witnesses and assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government. United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th We "can reverse a Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 519 (2008). conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the prosecution's failure is clear." United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In order to establish a violation of 922(g)(1), the Government must prove the defendant was a convicted felon, he knowingly possessed the firearm, and the firearm traveled in interstate commerce. United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136 (4th Cir. 2001); United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Here, the parties stipulated that Sullivan was a convicted felon and that the firearm had the requisite therefore, interstate is whether commerce the nexus. The disputed that issue, Sullivan evidence established possessed the firearm. or joint. Possession may be actual, constructive, Gallimore, 247 F.3d at 136-37. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, there appears to be little dispute that the jury 3 could find Sullivan full guilty record, beyond it is a reasonable that doubt. After reviewing the clear the defendant's statements, his close proximity to the gun and the testimony of an eyewitness all support the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?