UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4929
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LLOYD OBED ADAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00195-TDS-1)
Submitted: June 20, 2014 Decided: June 26, 2014
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan Gates, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Andrew C. Cochran, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Lloyd Obed Adams of possession of
ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2012). On appeal, Adams challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm.
We review the district court’s denial of a Fed. R.
Crim. P. 29 motion de novo. United States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d
83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011). We must sustain the jury’s verdict “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); see United States v. Al Sabahi, 719 F.3d
305, 311 (4th Cir.) (defining substantial evidence), cert.
denied, 134 S. Ct. 464 (2013). We “can reverse a conviction on
insufficiency grounds only when the prosecution’s failure is
clear.” United States v. Lawing, 703 F.3d 229, 240 (4th Cir.
2012) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 133 S.
Ct. 1851 (2013).
After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Government, we conclude that there was sufficient
evidence to support the jury’s finding that Adams possessed
ammunition that had traveled in interstate commerce. ∗ See United
States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 395 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc)
∗
Adams stipulated that he had a prior felony conviction.
2
(stating elements of § 922(g)(l) offense). The possession
element was satisfied by Adams’ admission that he was aware the
firearm, which contained the ammunition, was in his dresser
drawer. See Lawing, 703 F.3d at 240 (“Constructive possession
is established when the government produces evidence that shows
ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband itself or
the premises . . . in which the contraband was concealed.”);
United States v. Kitchen, 57 F.3d 516, 519-21 (7th Cir. 1995)
(affirming conviction for constructive possession of firearm
found in dresser drawer). The interstate commerce element was
satisfied by Special Agent Amato’s expert testimony that the
ammunition was discovered in North Carolina but manufactured
outside of North Carolina. See United States v. Williams, 445
F.3d 724, 740 (4th Cir. 2006).
Because there was sufficient evidence to support the
disputed elements, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3