US v. Wayne Wilson, No. 08-4331 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4331 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WAYNE DOUGLAS WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:07-cr-00057-F-l) Submitted: March 25, 2009 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and April 24, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William L. Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wayne Douglas Wilson was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to 96 months in prison. Wilson timely appealed. Counsel for Wilson filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Wilson was given an opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not err in denying trial counsel s motion for judgment of acquittal alleging insufficiency of the evidence. This court reviews de novo a district court s denial of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion. 2005). guilty United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. In conducting such a review, the court must sustain a verdict favorable to if, the viewing the prosecution, substantial evidence. evidence the in verdict the is light supported most by United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate . . . to support a conclusion of defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 2 128 S. Ct. 2525 (2008). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume that the jury resolved all testimony in favor of the Government. contradictions in the United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 519 (2008). To sustain a conviction for 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the Government must prove: convicted of exceeding one transported, a crime year; (1) the defendant previously had been punishable (2) shipped, or the by a defendant received, the term of imprisonment knowingly firearm; possessed, and (3) the possession was in or affecting commerce, because the firearm had travelled in interstate or foreign commerce. United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Here, the Government and counsel stipulated to the facts that Wilson had been previously convicted of a felony and that his right to possess a firearm had not been restored. that they observed Wilson with the Two officers testified firearm in his hand and Wilson also made a statement to police confirming that he had the gun. the Finally, the requisite interstate commerce element of offense was established by evidence the firearm and ammunition were manufactured in Ohio, Illinois, and Nebraska, and were recovered in North Carolina. 3 Because the evidence of Wilson s guilt was overwhelming, the district court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Further, a review of the sentencing transcript and the presentence investigation sentencing. must ( PSR ) report reveals no error in When determining a sentence, the district court calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). 596 (2007). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, Appellate review of a district court s imposition of a sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the [g]uidelines range, is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 591. Sentences within the applicable guidelines range may be presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Wilson, appropriately treating the guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable guidelines range, and weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors. The court adopted the PSR and found that, in light of Wilson s significant criminal history, a 96-month sentence was appropriate. greater than Furthermore, the Wilson s applicable sentence, guidelines range which and is below no the statutory maximum of ten years, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2006), may be presumed reasonable. Thus, we conclude that the district 4 court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Wilson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Wilson Court of requests the that United a States petition for be further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Wilson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
