FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 30, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14593 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 07 -000 42 -C R -4 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s K E V I N L E R O Y G R E E N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l30, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K evi n G re en, throu gh coun se l , appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on for posse ss i on of a2

f ir e a r m b y a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 ( e ) . O n ap p e a l, G r e e n a r g u e s th a t ( 1 ) th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to es t abl i sh thathe kn ow i ng l y posse ss ed a f i re arm ; and (2) the di stri ctcourtabused i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on the w e i ghtof the e v id e n c e a n d n e w ly d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e . B e g i n n i n g wi th th e f

i r s ti s s u e , we r e v i e w de no vo “w h e th e rth e r e is suff i ci entevi dence t o sup po rtthe j ury’ s ver di ct . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . O r tiz , 318 F . 3d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) . We wi l l a f f i r m a c o n v i c t i o n i f

we det erm i ne that“ a r ea sonabl e tri erof fa ctcoul d con cl ud e thatthe evi dence es t abl i shes gu i l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks o m i tt ed ). In m ak i n g th i s d et erm i n at i o n , w e rev i ew th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt , dr a w i ng a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s a nd m a ki ng c r e d ib ility c h o ic e s in th e g o v e rn m e n t’s f a v o r . U ni ted Stat es v. G arci a-Jai m es , 484 F .3 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 1 9 - 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , pet i t i on f or ce rt. f i l ed , ( U . S . J une 11, 2007) ( N o. 06 -118 63 ). F urtherm ore, “ [i ] ti s notnece ss ary thatthe evi dence excl ud e e very re as on abl e hypothesi s of i nn ocence or be w ho l l y i ncon si st entw i th every concl usi on exce ptthatof gu i l t. . . . ” U ni te d State s v . C alde r on , 127 F . 3d 1314, 1 3 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) .

“ T o obt a i n a c onvi c t i on f orbe i ng a f

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m , theGre en contends that the witnesses’ te stimony is not worthy

of belief , based in pa

rt on 1 his alleg ations of bias and inc onsistencies. We may not, however , review deter minations made by thejur y a s tothec re dib ili ty

of witne ss t e stimon

y unle ss suc h te stimony

is “ incre dib lea s a matter of la

w.” Calderon , 1 27 F .3 d at 13 25 . T e stimony is inc re dib lea s a

matter o f l aw o nly 3 [ g o v e rn m e n t] m u s t p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t [ G r e e n ] w a s ( 1 ) in kn ow i ng po ss es si on of a f i re arm , (2) aconv i ct ed fe l on , and (3) thatthe fi re arm af fe ct ed i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” U ni ted States v. G lover , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). G re en ar gu es on l y that th e g o v e rn m e n t f

a ile d to p r o v id e s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to p r o v e th a t h e k n o w in g ly pos s e s s e d a f

i r e a r m . B e c a us e G r e e n s t i pul a t e d a ttr i a l t o be i ng a c onvi c t e d f e l on, a n d h e d o e s n o t c o n te s t th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e e s tab lis h in g a n in te r s ta te ne xus , a ny a r gum e nt s ba s e d on thos e gr ounds a r e w a i ve d. See A cc es s N ow , Inc. v. Southw e s t

A i r l i ne s , C o. , 38 5 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 30 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( st at i ng thati ss ues n o t a r g u e d o n ap p e a l a r e ab a n d o n e d ) . A re as on abl e f

ac t -f i nd ercoul d con cl ud e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthat G re en w as i n k no w i ng po ss es si on of a gun base d o n the fol l ow i ng evi dence: ( 1) the a rr e s t i ng of

f i c e rs a w G r e e n m a ke m ove m e nt s w i th hi s ha nd a nd he a r d a c lic k in g s o u n d , lik e m e ta l a g a in s t s tu c c o , h ittin g a n e a rb y h o u s e ; ( 2 ) im m e d ia te ly the r e a f t e r , the of

f i c e rdi s c ove r e d the gun w he r e G r e e n ha d be e n s t a ndi ng a nd obs e r ve d tha ti tw a s m a r ke d w i th s tuc c o r e s i due ; a nd ( 3) a w i tne s s i de nt i f i e d the g u n r e tr ie v e d b y th e o f

f ic e ra s th e g u n s h e s a w G r e e n b r a n d is h e a r lie rth a t n ig h t. 1when it is “unbelieva ble on its face ” and relates to facts that the witness “physically could not have possibly

observe d or events that could not have oc curred under the laws of nature.” Id. (intern al quotatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) . Gre e n h a s f aile d tosh owthat th ete stimony of any witne ss i s incre dible as a matter of law . 4 N e x t, w e tu rn to G r e e n ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l on the ba s i s of the w e i ghtof

the e v id e n c e a n d n e w ly d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e .

“ W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on f

orne w tr i a l f

orabus e of di sc re t i on . ” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . C am

pa , 45 9 F . 3d 11 21 , 11 51 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( en ba nc ) . T he br oa d s t a nda r d f orgr a nt i ng a ne w tr i a l i s w he the rthe ve r di c tm us tbe se tas i de “ ‘ i n the i nt er es tof j ust i ce . ’ ” U n ite d S ta te s v . V

ic a r ia , 12 F . 3d 195, 198 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ; se e F ed. R . C ri m . P . 33 (a ). W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng on m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on the w e i ghtof

the e vi de nc e di f

f e r e nt l y tha n w e r e vi e w a c ha l l e nge t o the s uf f i c i e nc y of th e e v id e n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. M

art i nez , 7 6 3 F .2 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . I n e va l ua t i ng a m ot i on f orne w tr i a l ba s e d on the w e i ghtof the e vi de nc e , the evi dence i s notvi ew ed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the verdi ct , and the di stri ct court“ m ay w ei gh the evi dence and consi der the cr edi bi l i ty of the w i tness es . ” I d. H ow ever , “ [t ] he courtm ay no tre w ei gh the evi dence and setas i de the verdi ct si m pl y bec ause i tfe el s s om e other r es ul tw ou l d b e m ore r ea sonabl e. ” I d. a t1312- 1 3 . F o ra c o u r t to s e t a s id e th e v e r d ic t, “[ t]h e e v id e n c e m u s t p r e p o n d e r a te h e a v ily5

agai nstthe verdi ct , such thati tw ou l d b e am i sc arri age of j ust i ce t o l etthe verdi ct st and. ” I d . a t1313. W e ha ve not e d tha tm ot i ons f orne w tr i a l ba s e d on the w e i ght o f th e e v id e n c e a r e n o t f

a v o r e d a n d a r e g r a n te d “s p a r in g ly a n d w ith c a u tio n ,” o n ly i n “ exce pt i on al ca se s. ” I d. (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). A m o tio n f

o ra n e w tr ia l b a s e d o n n e w ly d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e is a ls o “h ig h ly di sf avored” and “ shou l d b e gra nt ed on l y w i th g re atcaut i on . ” C am pa , 45 9 F . 3d at 11 51 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). A new tri al base d o n n ew l y di sc ov er ed e v id e n c e is w a rr a n te d o n ly if: “( 1 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s in f a c t d is c o v e r e d a f

te rtr ia l; (2) the defendantexer ci se d d ue ca re t o d i sc ov erthe evi dence; (3) the evi dence w as notm e r e l y c um ul a t i ve ori m pe a c hi ng; ( 4) the e vi de nc e w a s m a t e r i a l ; a nd ( 5) the e vi de nc e w a s of

s uc h a na tur e tha ta ne w tr i a l w oul d pr obabl y pr oduc e a di f f e r e nt r e s u lt.” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . T

hom ps on , 42 2 F . 3d 12 85 , 12 94 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). “ T he fa i l ure t o sat i sf y a ny on e of these el em ent s i s f at al t o a m ot i on for anew tri al . ” I d . (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng G r e e n’ s m ot i on f or a ne w tr i a l . E ve n c ons i de r i ng the c r e di bi l i ty of the w i tne s s e s a nd a ny i nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n the i rt e s t i m ony , the w e i ghtof the e vi de nc e doe s not pr e ponde r a t e he a vi l y a ga i ns tthe ve r di c t . A ddi t i ona l l y , the phot ogr aphs a nd v id e o tap e , w h ic h G r e e n r e lie d o n to s u p p o r t h is m o tio n o n th e b a s is o f n e w ly6

d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e , w e r e d is c lo s e d p r io rto tr ia l, s o th e y w e r e n o t n e w ly di s c ove r e d. L a s t l y , G r e e n w a s notpr e j udi c e d by the t i m i ng of the f i nge rpr i nt e x p e r t’s e x a m in a tio n o f th e g u n b e c a u s e th e e x p e r t d id n o t f in d a u s e ab le p r in t. A c c or di ngl y , f

orthe above s t a t e d r e a s ons , w e a f f i r m G r e e n’ s c onvi c t i on. AF F I RME D.