UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4162
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAPHAEL TOMAR CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00042-FWB)
Submitted: October 11, 2006 Decided: November 6, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anne R. Littlejohn, LAW OFFICE OF ANNE R. LITTLEJOHN, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Raphael Tomar Carter appeals from his conviction for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.* On appeal, he
contends that there was insufficient evidence to show that he
possessed the firearm after he was convicted of a felony. We
affirm.
We review the denial of a motion for acquittal de novo.
United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 1925 (2006). Where, as here, the motion was
based on a claim of insufficient evidence, “[t]he verdict of a jury
must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view
most favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser v.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We “have defined
‘substantial evidence’ as ‘evidence that a reasonable finder of
fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a
conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693. We “consider circumstantial as well as
direct evidence, and allow the government the benefit of all
reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be
established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th
Cir. 1982). If the evidence “supports different, reasonable
*
Carter was also convicted of possessing counterfeit money,
but he does not challenge that conviction.
- 2 -
interpretations, the jury decides which interpretation to believe.”
United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994).
Because Carter stipulated to the other elements of the
offense, the only contested issue at trial was whether he possessed
the handgun. Possession may be actual, constructive, or joint.
United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 136-37 (4th Cir. 2001).
“[T]o establish constructive possession, the government must
produce evidence showing ownership, dominion, or control over the
contraband itself or the premises or vehicle in which the
contraband is concealed.” United States v. Blue, 957 F.2d 106, 107
(4th Cir. 1992). Possession may be established by circumstantial
evidence. United States v. Schocket, 753 F.2d 336, 340 (4th Cir.
1985).
Here, the evidence showed that Carter owned the gun and
that he left it at the residence where it was found. Although it
is not clear when he did that, the evidence showed that, after his
felony conviction, he stayed at the residence from time to time, he
gave the police the address of the residence as his home address on
more than one occasion, and he was at the residence immediately
prior to being incarcerated on a different charge. In addition,
two other residents of the home denied ownership or knowledge of
the firearm, and Carter told his cousin to retrieve the firearm
from the police. Considering Carter’s ownership of the gun and his
access to the residence, the jury could have reasonably determined
- 3 -
that Carter had sufficient dominion and control over the firearm to
support a finding of possession.
Accordingly, we affirm Carter’s conviction. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -