UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4331
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WAYNE DOUGLAS WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00057-F-l)
Submitted: March 25, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William L. Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Douglas Wilson was convicted after a jury trial
of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to 96 months in
prison. Wilson timely appealed.
Counsel for Wilson filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Wilson was given an
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not
done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record and conclude the district
court did not err in denying trial counsel’s motion for judgment
of acquittal alleging insufficiency of the evidence. This court
reviews de novo a district court’s denial of a Fed. R. Crim. P.
29 motion. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir.
2005). In conducting such a review, the court must sustain a
guilty verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, the verdict is supported by
substantial evidence. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862
(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Substantial evidence is “evidence
that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate . . .
to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.” United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir.)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied,
2
128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). In evaluating the sufficiency of the
evidence, we do not review 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 Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 519
(2008).
To sustain a conviction for 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the
Government must prove: “(1) the defendant previously had been
convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment
exceeding one year; (2) the defendant knowingly possessed,
transported, shipped, or received, the firearm; and (3) the
possession was in or affecting commerce, because the firearm had
travelled in interstate or foreign commerce.” United States v.
Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Here, the
Government and counsel stipulated to the facts that Wilson had
been previously convicted of a felony and that his right to
possess a firearm had not been restored. Two officers testified
that they observed Wilson with the firearm in his hand and
Wilson also made a statement to police confirming that he had
the gun. Finally, the requisite interstate commerce element of
the offense was established by evidence the firearm and
ammunition were manufactured in Ohio, Illinois, and Nebraska,
and were recovered in North Carolina. Because the evidence of
3
Wilson’s guilt was overwhelming, the district court did not err
in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal.
Further, a review of the sentencing transcript and the
presentence investigation (“PSR”) report reveals no error in
sentencing. When determining a sentence, the district court
must calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and
consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586,
596 (2007). Appellate review of a district court’s imposition
of a sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the [g]uidelines range,” is for abuse of discretion.
Id. at 591. Sentences within the applicable guidelines range
may be presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United
States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court followed the necessary procedural
steps in sentencing Wilson, appropriately treating the
guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the
applicable guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a)
factors. The court adopted the PSR and found that, in light of
Wilson’s significant criminal history, a 96-month sentence was
appropriate. Furthermore, Wilson’s sentence, which is no
greater than the applicable guidelines range and below the
statutory maximum of ten years, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2006),
may be presumed reasonable. Thus, we conclude that the district
4
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen
sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Wilson, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Wilson requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Wilson.
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
5