[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 15, 2006
No. 05-15937 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00122-CR-WTM-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEREK TYRONE JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 15, 2006)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Derek Tyrone Jackson appeals his conviction following a jury trial for
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
We affirm.
Jackson contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
support a conviction under § 922(g) because it did not establish that he knowingly
possessed a firearm. He argues that the police officers’ testimony failed to
establish a link between the items the officers saw Jackson drop and throw while
being chased by police and the pistol and loaded pistol magazine later recovered
from the area.
“We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” United States v.
Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000). The jury has the exclusive power to
determine the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338,
1351 (11th Cir. 1999). Testimony is incredible as a matter of law if it includes
“facts that [the witness] physically could not have possibly observed or events that
could not have occurred under the laws of nature.” United States v. Rivera, 775
F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir. 1985) (internal quotations omitted) (brackets in
original). We will deem the evidence sufficient if a reasonable factfinder could
have found that the evidence established that the defendant was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir.
2
2001).
“To establish a violation of § 922(g)(1), the government must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt three elements: (1) that the defendant was a convicted felon,
(2) that the defendant was in knowing possession of a firearm, and (3) that the
firearm was in or affecting interstate commerce.” United States v. Deleveaux, 205
F.3d 1292, 1296–97 (11th Cir. 2000). Knowing possession can by shown by either
actual or constructive possession, so long as there is a reasonable inference that the
accused maintained “dominion and control” over the weapon. United States v.
Sweeting, 933 F.2d 962, 965 (11th Cir. 1991)
Because Jackson concedes that elements (1) and (3) were shown, we only
need address the sufficiency of the evidence as to element (2). Officers Chad
Hughes and Claude Debnam both testified that they saw Jackson: (1) drop an
object after he fell while running from police; and (2) throw an object over the roof
of a shed as he ran. Debnam testified that he went to the area where Jackson had
dropped the object and found a pistol magazine containing ammunition. Officer
Clifford Huggins testified that at one point during the chase, he was on the east
side of a shed and Jackson was on the west side. Huggins testified that a handgun
was thrown over the shed and landed on the ground in front of him. Based on this
trial testimony, a reasonable factfinder could have found that the evidence
3
established beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson knowingly possessed a firearm.
See Deleveaux, 205 F.3d at 1296–97; Rivera, 775 F.2d at 1561; McDowell, 250
F.3d at 1365; Sweeting, 933 F.2d at 965. Because sufficient evidence supported
the jury’s verdict, we affirm Jackson’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
4