[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 19, 2007
No. 07-12047 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00128-CR-WS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SEBASTIAN SANCHEZ DUBOSE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(December 19, 2007)
Before DUBINA, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Sebastian DuBose (“Dubose”) appeals his convictions for
carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119, and possession of a firearm during a
crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). DuBose’s convictions arise
out of the carjacking and killing of Michael Rodgers (“Rodgers”), which was
witnessed by Lois Rodgers, the victim’s mother, and LaDonna Brown (“Brown”).
DuBose argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict
because the government failed to prove that he was present during the commission
of the crime. Dubose asserts that none of the witnesses were able to place him at
the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. He notes that there was no physical
evidence connecting him to the crime, and he also contends that the witness
testimony placing him in the area earlier that night was not enough for the jury to
infer his participation in the crime. DuBose emphasizes that Brown’s testimony
was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the testimony of Lois Rodgers.
“We review the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial de novo. The
evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government, with all
inferences and credibility choices drawn in the government’s favor. The question
to ask is whether a reasonable jury could have concluded that the evidence
established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
LeCroy, 441 F.3d 914, 924 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2096 (2007).
Credibility determinations are the sole province of the jury. United States v.
2
Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 1999).
After careful consideration of the briefs of the parties, and thorough review
of the record, we find no reversible error. DuBose does not contest whether the
evidence supported the jury’s finding that Rodgers’s attackers fulfilled the
elements of carjacking and of possessing a firearm during a crime of violence;
rather, Dubose only contests whether the evidence showed that DuBose was one of
those attackers. Brown witnessed the attack and positively identified DuBose as
one of the attackers. While Brown’s testimony was not entirely consistent with
other testimony, these inconsistencies go to credibility, and it is not within our
province to re-weigh the jury’s credibility determinations. Id. Thus, Brown’s
identification of Dubose provided sufficient evidence for the jury’s verdict.
Therefore, we affirm Dubose’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.
3