USA v. James Gowdy

Filing 920100201

Download PDF
Case: 09-60486 Document: 00511017924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-60486 Summary Calendar January 29, 2010 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES EDWARD GOWDY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:08-CR-167-1 Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* James Edward Gowdy appeals following his jury verdict conviction of being a felon in possession of ammunition and his sentence of 210 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Gowdy argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict regarding his knowing possession of the ammunition because the arresting officer's testimony was unreliable. A reasonable trier of fact could have concluded from the evidence that Gowdy's knowing possession of the ammunition was 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. * Case: 09-60486 Document: 00511017924 Page: 2 No. 09-60486 Date Filed: 01/29/2010 established beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Floyd, 343 F.3d 363, 370 (5th Cir. 2003). Gowdy also contends that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court unduly limited its discretion at sentencing and imposed a withinguidelines sentence that it believed was excessive. Examination of the record does not support that claim. Gowdy has failed to establish that his sentence was unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. 2

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?