The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minnesota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3429

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. William Dennis Echols, also known as * William D. Harris, also known as * Larry D. Jones, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 14, 1998 Filed: May 21, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. A jury convened in district court found William Dennis Echols guilty of being 1
a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) & 924(e)(1)

. Ec hols appeals from his conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. W e affirm.-2-

On the evening of November 29, 1996, police witnessed gunfire coming from a stree t corner in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The officers immediately confronted tw o suspects who were walking swiftly from the scene. The suspects p aused for a moment, then took flight in different directions. After a brief chase, Echols was apprehended in a nearby alley. The arresting officer had never lost sight of Echols as he ran an d o b served him reaching for his waistband several times. Police recovered a Colt .357 magnumre volver from the site in the alley where Echols had struggled before bein g subdued. Two rounds of ammunition had been expended from the loaded revolver.
To support the conviction, the government had the burden of proving: (1) tha t Echols had previously been convicted of a felony; (2) that he thereafter possessed a firearm; and (3) that the firearm traveled in or affected interstate commerce. Se e United States v. Anderson , 78 F.3d 420, 422 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Eldridge , 984 F.2d 943, 946 (8th Cir. 1993). Having previously been co nvicted of several armed robberies, as wel l as of kidnapping, assault, and attempted murder, Echols challenges the evidence regarding the second element only. We will uphold a conviction when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable jury could conclude that the defe ndant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Diaz-Diaz , 135 F.3d 572, 577 (8th Cir. 1998).
Echols essentially challenges the credibility of officers who variously testifie d that they witnessed the gunfire, confronted Echols, c hased him, observed him reach for his waistband as he fled, apprehended him, struggled with him, and recovered th e revolver where the struggle occurred. It is well settled that the credibility of witnesses is a matter to be resolved by the jury. See United States v. Parker , 32 F.3d 395, 399 (8th Cir. 1994) ; United States v. Williams , 897 F.2d 1430, 1432 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude that the record is replete with evidence sufficient to support Echols’ s convic tion beyond any reasonable doubt. See, e.g. , Anderson , 78 F.3d at 423-24 ; United States v. Rankin , 902 F.2d 1344, 1345-46 (8th Cir. 1990) (sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence supp orted defendant’s conviction of being felon in possessionIn his brief, Echols purports to preserve both a cha llenge to the jury instructions 2 and an app eal from the sentence imposed by the district court, pending discovery o f authority to support his positions. Because no argument or authority has bee n forthcoming, we hold that these issues are waived. See, e.g. , United States v. Richards , 118 F.3d 622, 624 (8th Cir. 1997) (declining to consider defendant’s argument where he failed to direct court’s attention to any re levant cases or to state any legal principles that he believed supported his position). -3- of firearm where police officers te stified that defendant dropped dark object to ground and one officer retrieved gun from that location). The judgment is affirmed. 2 A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.