Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 13-4566
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00024-D-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Damonte Livingston appeals from his conviction
on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (2012).
On
for
judgment
possession,
as
of
acquittal
convicted
on
felon,
of
count
a
one:
Hi-Point
unlawful
9mm
semi-
He also
of
Fed.
R.
Crim.
P.
29
motion.
United
States
v.
Gillion, 704 F.3d 284, 294 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.
Ct. 2039 (2013).
evidence
in
light
most
favorable
to
the
government.
United States v. Stewart, 256 F.3d 231, 249 (4th Cir. 2001); see
United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982).
Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of
fact
could
accept
as
adequate
and
sufficient
to
support
in
United
cases
where
States v.
the
Burgos,
prosecutions
94
F.3d
849,
failure
862
is
(4th
clear.
Cir.
1996)
support
conviction
for
being
felon
in
convicted
of
[felony];
(2)
the
defendant
knowingly
commerce,
interstate
or
existence.
because
foreign
the
commerce
firearm
at
some
had
travelled
point
during
in
its
on
witness
significant
testimony
physical,
and
written,
was
or
not
supported
photographic
by
any
evidence.
He
does not contest, however, that the Government met its burden
with
respect
to
the
first
and
third
elements.
Rather,
he
the firearm was found within Livingstons reach and in the area
of the vehicle where Livingston was seated.
We
therefore
conclude
that
substantial
evidence
Livingston
contends
that
the
district
court
The form
first
of
asked
the
jury
whether
Livingston
was
guilty
each
form
after
defense
counsel
that
bag
of
so.
confusing.
He
also
summarily
states
that
the
wording
was
Cir. 2009); United States v. Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260, 271 (4th
Cir. 2008).
Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 2014 WL 1659920 (U.S. Apr. 28, 2014).
The
unambiguous.
special
verdict
form
itself
was
clear
and
jury that Livingston was not presumed guilty of any crime and
that it need not find him guilty if the evidence did not support
it.
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with
contentions
this
court
are
and