F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au g. 28, 20 08 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1538 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00434 -CR- T- 26-TBM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us HA ROL D W IL LI AMS , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 28, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Harold W illiam s appeals his conv ictions after a j ury trial for poss ession o f a fi re ar m by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in vio latio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), and r ec ei vin g,2

po ss es si ng , anddi sp os in g o f a s to le n fi rearm , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (j). W ill iam s c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing his m oti on f

or j udgm en t of ac qui tta l and, in the a lte rn at ive , m oti on f or ne wtr ia l, both of

w hic h w er e ba se d on a cl ai m of ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce . W e dis ag re e an d a ff irm his c onvi ct ion s. I. Upon a de fe ndant’ s m oti on, adis tr ic t c ourt m ust gr an t a “ j udgm en t of ac qui tta l of

any of fe nse f or w hic h th e ev ide nc e is i nsuf fi ci en t t o su sta in a co nv ic ti on .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 29 (a). W e re vie wde nov o th e suf fi ci en cy of ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

ac onvi ct ion . U nit ed

S tate s v. O rt iz , 318 F . 3d 1 030, 103 6 (1 1thCi r. 200 3) . W e w ill a ff irm ac onvi ct ionif

“ any r at ion al tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d have found th e essential elem ents of the crim e bey ond a reasonable doub t.” U nit ed S tate s v. H unt , 187 F . 3d 1 269, 127 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( int er na l qu otatio n m arks om itted) (em

phasis in original). I n m aking th is determ ination , w e re view the e vid en ce in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t and a cc ep t a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s inf

av or of the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t. U nit ed

S tate s v. Ch ir ino s, 112 F.3 d 1 08 9, 1 09 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) .To c onvic t un de r s e c tio n 9 22 (g )( 1) , th e g ov e rnme nt m us t prove (1) the de fe nd ant w a s a 1 convicted f

elon, (2) the defendant knowingly possessed a f irea rm or ammunition, and (3) the firea rm or ammunit ion wa s par

t of i nte rs tate c omm e rc e . Unit e d St ate s v . Pa lma , 5 11 F .3 d 1 31 1, 13 15 (1 1th Cir. 2008). To convict unde r sec t i on 922(j), the g overnme nt must prove (1) the de fenda nt rec eived, 2 possessed, conc eale d, stored, bartere d, sold, or disposed of a stolen f irea rm, (2) the defe ndant knew or had rea son to know

the fire arm wa s stolen, and (3) the firea rm was pa

rt of interstate commerc e. 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). 3 Th e g o v ern m en ti n tro du ce ds u ff i ci en tev i d en ce t o s u s t ai nWil l i ams’s co nvi ct ion s f

or pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m by ac onvi ct ed

f el on and r ec ei vin g, 1 poss essing, and disp osing of a stolen firearm . First, the parties stipulated th at 2 W ill iam s w as ac onvi ct ed f el on at the ti m e of

the of fe nse s. S ec ond, the governm ent produced un controverted evidence that the pertinent firear m s wer e inv olv ed in int er state c om

m er ce and s tol en . F ina lly , m ult ipl e gove rn m en t w itn es se s pr ovi de d te sti m ony sug ge sti ng tha t W ill iam s po sse sse d th e fi re ar m s, kne wor ha d r ea son to k

nowthe f ir earm s w er e sto le n whe n do ing so, and th e r e a f t e r p art i c i p a t e di nth e s a l e o f th e f i r e arms t o ath i r dp arty. A lth oughW ill iam s in tr oduc ed no e vid en ce in his de fe nse , he ne ve rthe le ss cl ai m s th e gove rnm en t’ s c as e is i nsuf fi ci en t be ca

use the te sti m ony

on whic h it

is pr in ci pa ll y

ba se d i s co nt rad ic to ry

an d i nc on si st en t an d, as a res ul t, n otcred ib le . Credibility

determ ination s, howe ver, fall w ithin the exclusive provin ce of the j ury and m ay not be revisited un less the testim ony “ is incredible as a m atter of law. ”4

United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314 , 1325 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal quot at ionm ar

ks o m itt ed ). T es tim ony

is inc re dib le onl y

if it is “ unbe lie vable on i ts fa ce ”— it of

fe rs “ fa ct s th at

[ the w itn es s] phy sic al ly

c oul d no t have pos sib ly observed or events that coul d not h ave occurr ed under the laws of nature .” U nited St at es v. Ri ve ra , 775 F . 2d 1 559, 156 1 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks o m i t t ed ). Wil l i ams h as n o ts h o wn th atth e t es t i m o n y o f t h e g o v ern m en t ’s witnesses is incredible as a m atter of law. W e theref ore see no er

ror in the district co ur t’s d en ia l o f W il li am s’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al . II. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r ne w tri al forab us e o f di sc ret io n. U nit ed S tate s v. Cam

pa , 459 F . 3d 1 121, 115 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) . I n r uli ng o n a m otion for newtrial, and unlik e a m otion for j udgm ent of acquittal, the district court “ m ay

we igh th e evidence and consider the cre dibil ity of the w itnesses .” U nit ed S tate s v. Mart ine z, 763 F . 2d 1 297, 131 3 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) . B ut t o se t a sid e a j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t, “ [t ] he e vid en ce m ust pr ep onde rate he av ily

a ga ins t the ve rd ic t, su ch th atitwou ldbe a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e to letth e v erd ic t s ta nd .” Id . A m oti on f or ne wtr ia l ba se d onthe w ei ght of the e vid en ce is “ not

f av or ed , ” an dAs Wil liams corre ctly points out, new trial motions based on the weight of the evide nce ha ve 3 been grante d wher e “the cr edibility of the g overnme nt’s witnesses had be en impeac hed and the g overnme nt’s case had bee n marke d by uncer tainties and discre pancie s.” United States v. Cox , 995 F .2 d 1 04 1, 10 45 n. 9 ( 11 th C ir . 1 99 3) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d). B ut t

hat is no t th e c a se here . 5 courts are to grant them

“ onlyin thos e re ally

exceptional cases.” Id. (internal quot at ionm ar

ks o m itt ed ). H er e, e ve n c onsi de ri ng the c re dib ili ty of the gove rnm en t’ s w itn es se s and any inc onsi ste nc ie s inthe ir

te sti m ony , the w ei ght

of 3 th e e v i d en ce d o es n o tp re p o n d er at e h ea v i l y ag ai n s tth e ju ry’s v er d i ct . We therefore see no err or in the district court’ s denial of W illiam s’ s m otion for new tri al . III . W il li am s’s co nv ic ti on s ar e AFFIR MED.