UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4219

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHN ERWIN OVERBY, JR.,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00340-NCT-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2010 Decided: December 10, 2010

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, 

Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Erwin Overby, Jr., was convicted of one count of 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). He was sentenced to 200 months in 

prison. Overby now appeals, contending that the district court 

erred when it denied his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for judgment 

of acquittal. We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny 

a Rule 29 motion. United States v. Reid, 523 F.3d 310, 317 (4th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 663 (2008). We will sustain a 

verdict “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the government, it is supported by substantial evidence.” Id.; 

see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). 

“Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of 

fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a 

conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Reid, 523 F.3d at 317 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e 

can reverse a conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the 

prosecution’s failure is clear.” United States v. Moye, 454 

F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). We review both direct and circumstantial 

evidence and permit “the government the benefit of all 

reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to 

be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 
3

(4th Cir. 1982). “[W]e do not review the credibility of the 

witnesses and assume the jury resolved all contradictions in the 

testimony in favor of the government.” United States v. Sun, 

278 F.3d 302, 312 (4th Cir. 2002). 

To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the

Government must prove: “(1) the defendant previously had been 

convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment 

exceeding one year; (2) the defendant knowingly possessed, 

transported, shipped, or received[] the firearm; and (3) the 

possession was in or affecting commerce.” United States v. 

Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). It was 

stipulated at trial that the firearm in question had traveled in 

interstate commerce and that Overby was a convicted felon.

The remaining question is whether Overby knowingly 

possessed the firearm. Testimony at trial established that 

Overby was arrested following a traffic stop of his vehicle. 

During a search of the vehicle incident to the arrest, an

officer discovered a handgun beneath the driver’s floor mat. 

Overby was transported to police headquarters and interviewed. 

He admitted that the firearm was his, he had purchased it four 

or five years earlier from a coworker, and he had test-fired the 

gun. The interview was videotaped, and the recording was played 

for the jury. We conclude that this evidence establishes 

Overby’s knowing possession of the firearm.
4

We hold that the evidence was sufficient to convict 

Overby of violating § 922(g)(1), and we therefore affirm. We 

dispense with oral 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