Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01650/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01650-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Winfred Thomas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1650

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Winfred Thomas, * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: April 4, 2005

Filed: April 13, 2005 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Winfred Thomas appeals the district court’s1

 judgment, entered upon a jury

verdict, finding him guilty of being a felon in possession of firearms and sentencing

him to 216 months imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e). For the reasons

that follow, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-1650 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2005 Entry ID: 1890341
-2-

During the jury selection process, Thomas challenged under Batson v.

Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the government’s use of a peremptory challenge to

strike one potential juror. The government explained that it had struck the juror in

question because he had said nothing during voir dire, he did not own his residence,

he did not have children, and he had no identifiable community involvement. The

government stated it had struck other potential jurors for the same reasons and did not

decline to strike anyone similarly situated, and the district court, finding the

government’s explanation was race-neutral, denied the Batson challenge. We review

for clear error, see United States v. Jones, 245 F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir. 2001), and find

none. See United States v. Atkins, 25 F.3d 1401, 1406 (8th Cir.) (juror lacking

attachment to community was validly stricken by government), cert. denied, 513 U.S.

953 (1994); United States v. Hoelscher, 914 F.2d 1527, 1540 (8th Cir. 1990) (no

Batson violation where government’s reasons for striking juror included that she said

nothing during voir dire), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1090 and 500 U.S. 943 (1991).

Thomas also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence introduced at trial. We

review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, giving the

government the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See United States v. Maxwell,

363 F.3d 815, 817 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 2005 WL 406296 (Feb. 22, 2005).

The verdict must be upheld if there is an interpretation of the evidence that would

allow a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. To convict

Thomas as a felon in possession, the government had to prove that he had been

convicted of a felony, that he knowingly possessed a firearm, and that the firearm

traveled in or affected interstate commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); United States

v. Abfalter, 340 F.3d 646, 654 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1134 (2004).

Thomas stipulated he was a convicted felon, and two witnesses testified that

the firearms found in the Ford Explorer he was driving at the time of his arrest had

traveled in interstate commerce. In addition, there was ample evidence that Thomas

knowingly possessed the firearms for purposes of section 922(g): one firearm was

Appellate Case: 04-1650 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2005 Entry ID: 1890341
-3-

found under the driver’s seat, and two were in a bag on the floorboard behind the seat,

and officers had recently observed occupants of the Explorer receive the bag from an

unidentified individual suspected of involvement in a gun store robbery. See

Maxwell, 363 F.3d at 818 (conviction under § 922(g) may be based on constructive

or joint possession of firearm; constructive possession is established if person has

dominion over premises where firearm is located, or control, ownership, or dominion

over firearm itself); United States v. Walker, 393 F.3d 842, 847 (8th Cir. 2005)

(affirming felon-in-possession conviction where gun was found under front passenger

seat of defendant’s vehicle, and defendant was initially seated in front passenger

seat); United States v. Hiebert, 30 F.3d 1005, 1009 (8th Cir.) (affirming felon-inpossession conviction where rifle was found in vehicle defendant was driving), cert.

denied, 513 U.S. 1029 (1994).

In pro se supplemental briefs, which we grant leave to file, Thomas challenges

his sentence. We conclude that the district court was correct in finding Thomas’s

prior Missouri burglary convictions (one first-degree and two second-degree) qualify

as predicate offenses under section 924(e). See United States v. Nolan, 397 F.3d 665,

666-67 (8th Cir. 2005). In addition, the Supreme Court has not held that prior

convictions must be submitted to a jury. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738,

756 (2005). Thomas’s remaining arguments either are meritless or were not raised

in the district court and do not warrant further discussion, see United States v.

Montanye, 996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1650 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/13/2005 Entry ID: 1890341