UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRADLEY DEAN SHEETS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00418-WO-1)
Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 26, 2010
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United
States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bradley Dean Sheets was convicted following a jury
trial for possession of a firearm after having previously been
convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment
exceeding one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006). At the conclusion of the Government’s case, Sheets
moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
29. The district court denied the motion. Sheets also filed a
post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal, which the district
court denied. The district court sentenced Sheets to 235 months
of imprisonment, the lowest point in the advisory guidelines
range. Sheets appeals his conviction and sentence. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Sheets argues that the district court erred
in denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motions. We review the
district court’s ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal de
novo and “will uphold the verdict if, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the government, it is supported by
substantial evidence.” United States v. Reid, 523 F.3d 310, 317
(4th Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence is “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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). We do not review the credibility of
2
witnesses, but consider “the evidence and all reasonable
inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to
the prosecution.” United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 217
(4th Cir. 2006).
The elements of a violation of § 922(g)(1) are:
“(1) the defendant previously had been convicted of a crime
punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year; (2) the
defendant knowingly possessed . . . the firearm; and (3) the
possession was in or affecting commerce, because the firearm had
traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.” United States v.
Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995). Sheets stipulated to
a qualifying prior conviction and that the firearm had traveled
in and affected interstate commerce. Sheets argues that the
evidence did not credibly establish that he possessed a firearm.
According to the testimony and evidence presented at trial, a
reasonable jury could have found that Sheets possessed a
firearm. Substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict, and
the district court did not err in denying the motions for
judgment of acquittal. Consequently, we affirm Sheets’
conviction.
Sheets also contends that his 235-month sentence is
unconstitutional because the sentencing court treated the
advisory guidelines as mandatory. We find the sentence
reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)
3
(review of sentence is for abuse of discretion). The record
reveals that the district court specifically recognized the
advisory nature of the sentencing guidelines. The court imposed
a procedurally and substantively reasonable sentence at the
lowest point of the advisory guidelines range as defense counsel
requested. Accordingly, we affirm Sheets’ sentence.
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