UNPUBLISHEDUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,v.

No. 98-4297

MARC RAMONE TOLIVER,Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-97-305)
Submitted: October 30, 1998
Decided: January 11, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________COUNSEL
Dannie R. Sutton, Jr., GOODWIN, SUTTON, DUVAL & GEARY,
P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, UnitedStates Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney,Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

OPINIONPER CURIAM:
Marc Ramone Toliver appeals his conviction after a jury trial forbeing a felon in possession of ammunition. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)(1994). At trial, Toliver stipulated to his prior felony conviction andthe fact that the ammunition was operable and had traveled in interstate commerce. As a result, the only issue at trial was whether
Toliver was in possession of a "banana" clip containing twenty-eightrounds of ammunition found along the route of the high-speed car
chase which lead to his arrest. In this appeal, Toliver challenges thejury's conclusion on this issue claiming that there was insufficientevidence to convict him of possession of the ammunition. Because wefind that the jury's verdict was amply supported by the evidence attrial, we affirm Toliver's conviction and sentence.
As a threshold matter, we note that a defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction bears "a heavy burden." United States v. Hoyte, 51 F.3d 1239, 1245 (4th Cir. 1995). To
sustain Toliver's conviction, this court must find that the evidence,
when viewed in a light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elementsof the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Brewer,
1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th Cir. 1993). The reviewing court considers circumstantial as well as direct evidence and the government is given thebenefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to thosesought to be established. See United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849,863 (4th Cir. 1996).
Toliver's stipulations reduced the Government's case to the soleissue of whether Toliver possessed the ammunition contained in theclip. Possession of a firearm for the purposes of§ 922(g) may beeither actual or constructive. See United States v. Blue, 957 F.2d 106,107 (4th Cir. 1992). In order "`to establish constructive possession,
the government must produce evidence showing ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband itself or the premises or vehicle
in which the contraband is concealed.'" Id. (quoting United States v.
Ferg, 504 F.2d 914, 916-17 (5th Cir. 1974)) (alteration omitted). The
Government's case rested predominantly on the testimony of the2arresting officer. In attempting to stop a car for a number of traffic
violations, Officer Joseph Ested and his partners found themselves
embroiled in a high-speed car chase. During that chase, the individualin the front passenger's seat threw several objects from the movingvehicle. When the chase ended with the fleeing vehicle slammed intoa parked car, Toliver jumped from the front passenger's seat andattempted to escape on foot. After Toliver escaped Officer Ested
momentarily with a well-placed right elbow, Officer Ested resumed
the chase and eventually tackled and managed to subdue Toliver.
Although the responding officers were unable to recover what Officer Ested described as a "white bag object" thrown from the vehicle,
Ested did discover the ammunition clip near the second place where
he observed the front-seat passenger of the vehicle discarding objects.
At the end of his testimony, Ested positively identified Toliver as theperson who threw the ammunition from the vehicle. By throwing theclip from the car, Toliver exerted the necessary dominion and controlover the ammunition to establish that he possessed it. In light of thestandard of review of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we have nodifficulty concluding that the Government presented sufficient evidence on which to return a conviction. See United States v. Johnson,
55 F.3d 976, 979 (4th Cir. 1995).
In this appeal, Toliver notes that Officer Ested did not testify that
he saw Toliver in possession of the ammunition clip. Toliver suggeststhat Ested's observation of Toliver's throwing an object near whereEsted found the clip was insufficient to prove his possession of theclip. However, the Government is entitled to the reasonable inference
that the object Ested described Toliver tossing from the car was theclip full of ammunition Ested discovered near where Toliver abandoned something. See id.; United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018,1021 (4th Cir. 1982). The fact that Officer Ested was not able to identify the discarded item until after he found it does not render the evidence in this case insufficient.
Toliver next points to the testimony of Antoin Jones, who was riding in the vehicle with Toliver at the time of the chase. Jones testified
that he did not see Toliver throw anything from the vehicle. Jones's
testimony suggested that it was the unknown and unapprehended
driver of the automobile who reached over and threw the objects out
3

of Toliver's window. In addition, Toliver suggests that because nofingerprints link him to the clip, there was insufficient evidence toshow his possession of the ammunition. In the analysis of a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this court neither weighs the evidence
nor reviews the credibility of witnesses. See United States v.
Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989). In this case, the jury credited the testimony of Officer Ested over that of Jones, notwithstanding
the difference in proximity between the two witnesses' observation of
Toliver's actions. This court will not disturb the jury's conclusion onappeal. Toliver's suggestion regarding the lack of fingerprint evidence merely goes to the weight of the Government's evidence, notits sufficiency. We decline Toliver's invitation to reweigh the evidence.
Finding no merit to any of Toliver's contentions, we conclude that
this conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. As a result, weaffirm the district court's judgment and sentence. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4