US v. Michael Bryant
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00716-RBH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000050416].. [16-4493]
Appeal: 16-4493
Doc: 32
Filed: 03/28/2017
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4493
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:15-cr-00716-RBH-1)
Submitted:
February 28, 2017
Decided:
March 28, 2017
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kimberly H. Albro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Beth Drake, Acting United States
Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-4493
Doc: 32
Filed: 03/28/2017
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Michael Bryant appeals his jury conviction for possession
of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2012).
On appeal, Bryant contends the district court
should have granted his motions for a mistrial and for judgment
of acquittal.
Specifically, he argues the Government breached a
pretrial agreement precluding evidence, and the prejudice could
not be cured by the district court’s curative instruction.
He
further contends the evidence was insufficient to prove that he
possessed the firearm and to support his conviction.
We
review
a
district
court’s
mistrial for abuse of discretion.
denial
of
a
We affirm.
motion
for
a
United States v. Johnson, 587
F.3d 625, 631 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); United States
v.
Wallace,
omitted).
515
F.3d
327,
330
(4th
Cir.
2008)
(citations
“An abuse of discretion exists if . . . the defendant
[can] show prejudice; no prejudice exists, however, if the jury
could
make
court’s
individual
cautionary
guilt
determinations
instructions.”
Wallace,
by
following
515
F.3d
the
at
330
motion
for
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We
review
a
district
court’s
judgment of acquittal de novo.
denial
of
a
United States v. Hassan, 742
F.3d 104, 139 (4th Cir. 2014).
“Applying that standard, it is
well settled that ‘[t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained if
there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to
2
Appeal: 16-4493
the
Doc: 32
Filed: 03/28/2017
[g]overnment,
to
Pg: 3 of 4
support
it.”
Id.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)).
is
that
which
a
reasonable
finder
(quoting
Glasser
v.
“[S]ubstantial evidence
of
fact
could
accept
as
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
and citation omitted).
sufficiency
of
the
Id. (internal quotation marks
“Simply put, a defendant challenging the
evidence
faces
a
heavy
burden.”
Id.
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“‘To
show
a
§ 922(g)(1)
violation,
the
government
must
prove three elements: (i) that the defendant was a convicted
felon at the time of the offense; (ii) that he voluntarily and
intentionally possessed a firearm; and (iii) that the firearm
traveled in interstate commerce at some point.’”
United States
v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 183 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting United
States
v.
Gallimore,
247
F.3d
134,
“[Section]
922(g)(1)
does
not
require
exclusive
possession;
sufficient.”
“The
constructive
136
or
(4th
Cir.
2001)).
proof
of
actual
or
joint
possession
is
Gallimore, 247 F.3d at 136-37 (citations omitted).
Government
may
prove
constructive
possession
by
demonstrating that the defendant exercised, or had the power to
exercise,
dominion
and
control
over
the
item.”
Id.
at
137
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bryant’s motion
3
Appeal: 16-4493
Doc: 32
Filed: 03/28/2017
Pg: 4 of 4
for a mistrial, and the evidence was sufficient to support his
conviction.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
We
with
dispense
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this 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?