Case ID: f-appx_167/html/0988-01.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. Rayah Markeith WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-10484.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 21, 2006.
    Susan B. Cowger, Felicia M. Moncrief, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rayah Markeith Williams appeals from his jury-verdict conviction for using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during or in relation to a crime of violence. He argues on appeal that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Williams properly preserved this issue for appeal. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found that the Government proved all of the essential elements regarding this charge. See United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 575-76 (5th Cir.1999).

Williams also argues that the prosecutor made an improper remark during closing arguments. Because Williams did not object on this basis in district court, this argument is reviewed for plain error only. See United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380, 392 (5th Cir.1997). Examination of the prosecutor’s challenged argument does not indicate that it was improper. See United States v. Binker, 795 F.2d 1218, 1223-24 (5th Cir.1986). Williams has therefore failed to show plain error regarding the prosecutor’s closing argument.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment of conviction 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.