Case ID: f-appx_713/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Purnell Elliott WILLIAMS, also known as Pernell Elliott Williams, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-50542 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 6, 2018
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mara Asya Blatt, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, David Matthew Cole Peterson, Esq., Trial Attorney, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    
      Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Purnell Elliott Williams appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for possessing a firearm following a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. In his sole appellate argument,. he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) because the Government failed to prove the requisite domestic relationship between him and the victim of his 2010 Texas assault. Although proof of a domestic relationship is necessary for the federal firearm conviction, the underlying misdemeanor offense need not have a domestic relationship as an element. United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415, 418, 421-29, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 172 L.Ed.2d 816 (2009). The record contains sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that Ronnessa Williams, the assault victim, was Williams’s wife at the time of the incident. See United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 2007); 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.