## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 17 63

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. Ja so n Lee Harri s, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 11 Fil ed : Oct ob er 2 8, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

Ja so n Harri s ap pe al s fro m th e jud gm en t en te red by th e di st ric t co ur t fo ll owi ng 1
Harri s’s co nv i c ti on by a jury fo r be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm an d

am m un it io n in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). Harri s arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e co nv ic ti on

. W e affi rm th e co nv ic ti on bu t

rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

The Hon or ab le Dav id Greg or y Kay s, Uni te d St at e s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.I.

At ap pr ox im at el y 3: 00 a.m

. on Apr il 5, 20 10
, St acey Hud le m ey er he ard y el li ng be twee n he r so n an d Co dy Ch av ez. Sh e fo ll owe d he r so n as he ex it ed th ei r ho m e an d

sa w Cha ve z an d ano th er m an st an di ng to ge th er o ut si de . Hud le m ey er d es cri be d t he

ot he r m an , lat er i de nt ifi ed as Ha rri s, as ap pr ox im at el y fiv e feet fiv e in ch es ta ll wit h cl os el y sh av en bl on de ha ir a nd weari ng a ba gg y red sh irt

.

Afte r Ch av ez st at ed th at th e two m en ha d a gu n, Hud le m ey er or de red he r so n
to ret reat to th e fro nt po rch whi le sh e st oo d in th e dr iv eway. Hud le m ey er st oo d on ly a few fe et away

fro m Harri s an d C ha ve z fo r fi ve to ten m in ut es whi le th e arg um en t be twee n he r so n an d Ch av ez co nt in ue d. Afte r th reat en in g to sh oo t bo th Hud le m ey er

an d h e r s o n , Ch av ez to ld Harri s to rev eal th e gu n, whe reu po n Harri s pu ll ed ou t a bl ack ha nd gu n a nd fir ed on e sh ot ne ar Hud le m ey er’s he ad

. Afte r th e two m en lef t, Hud le m ey er cal le d th e St

. Jo se ph Po li ce Dep art m en t. The res po nd in g of fic er fo un d

a sh el l cas in g he ad -s ta m pe d “ W in ch es te r .40 cal ib er S&W” in H u dl em ey er’s dr iv eway.

So m e two ho ur s la te r, Offi cers Gary Hick o k a nd Aaro n Kin g en co un te red
Ja so n Harri s an d an ot he r m an ex it in g th e ba ck do or of a ho us e. Hick ok te st ifi ed th at th e two m en im m ed ia te ly st op pe d an d to ok a few st ep s ba ck ward whe n th ey sa w th e

un ifo rm ed of

fic ers

. Harri s le an ed ag ai ns t th e do or so th at hi s rig ht arm an d sh ou ld er were h id de n be hi nd it . Hi ck ok th en he ard a lo ud th um p. Be li ev in g t ha t Har ris ha d dr op pe d so m et hi ng , he or de red th e m en ou t of th e ho us e. Hick ok di sc ov ered a .40

- cal ib er h an dg un lo ad ed wit h fo ur bu ll et s i n t he m ag azi ne an d o ne in th e ch am be r.

Offi cer Kin g su pe rv is ed Harri s an d th e ot he r m an whi le Hick ok se cu red th e
gu n fo un d be hi nd th e do or

. Kin g te st ifi ed th at Harri s at te m pt ed to th ro w a ha nd gu n

m ag azi ne away f

r o m h i s pe rs on aft er st ep pi ng ou t of th e ho us e. Kin g de sc rib ed Harri s as ha vi ng a cl os el y sh av en ha irc ut an d wea rin g a red sh irt

.

-2

-Harri s was ch arg ed bo th wit h be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm an d of

be in g a fel on in po ss es s i o n of am m un it io n. He st ip ul at ed th at he was a co nv ic te d fel on an d th at th e ha nd gu n an d am m un it io n ha d tra ve le d in in te rs ta te co m m erce

. Fo ll owi ng a two -d ay tri al
, du rin g whi ch Hud le m ey er id en ti fie d hi m as th e pe rs on w ho ha d f ire d th e ha nd gu n in he r pr es en ce, th e jury fo un d Harri s gu il ty on bo th co un ts

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Har r i s t o a 11 2- m on th te rm of im pr is on m en t on each

co un t t o b e se rv ed co nc ur ren tl y

.

II.

Harri s co nt en ds th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e t h a t h e k no win gl y po ss es se d a fir earm an d am m un it io n. He arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce pr es en t e d was ci rcu m st an ti al
, co nt rad ic to ry , an d in su ffi ci en t as a m at te r of la w to su pp or t a fin di ng of gu il t. “ W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, reso lv in g evi de nt ia ry co nf li ct s in th e
go ve rn m en t’s fav or , an d dr awin g al l r e a so na bl e in fere nc es in fav or of th e jury’ s

ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. Payton , 63 6 F.3 d 1 0 2 7 , 1 0 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Kief

fer, 62 1 F.3 d 8 2 5, 83 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). W e do no t weig h th e

ev id en ce or as se ss th e cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es , an d we rev ers e a co nv ic ti on on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty. Uni te d St at es v. Bu tl er, 59 4 F.3 d 95 5, 96 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. San ta na , 52 4 F.3 d 85 1, 85 3 (8 th Cir . 20 08 )).

To co nv ic t Harri s of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm or am m un it io n , th e go ve rn m en t was req ui red to p r o v e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t (1 ) th at Harri s
pr ev io us ly was co nv ic te d of a cri m e pu ni sh ab le by a te rm of im pr is on m en t ex ceed in g

on e y ear, (2) th at he kn owi ng ly po ss es se d a fir earm or am m un it io n, and (3 ) th at th e fir earm an d am m

un it io n ha d be en in or affe ct ed in te rs ta te co m m erce

. Id

. (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Max well
, 36 3 F.3 d 81 5, 8 1 8 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 04 )). In li gh t of Harri s’s
st ip ul at io n, o nl y

th e el em en t o f kn owi ng po ss es si on was i n d is pu te

.

-3

-W e co nc lu de th at , as reco un te d ab ov e, th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t

th e jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t Har ris ha d k no win gl y po ss es se d a ha nd gu n and am m un it io n. Bec au se bo th th e po ss es si on of th e ha nd gu n an d th e am m un it io n oc cu rred at th e sa m e ti m e, ho wev er, th e two co un ts o f co nv ic ti on sh ou ld ha ve be en m erg ed an d Harri s sh ou ld ha ve be en se nt en ced on on ly on e co un t. See Uni te d St at es v. Ri ch ard so n, 43 9 F.3 d 42 1, 42 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (en ba nc ) (p er cu ria m ) (h ol di ng th a t s ep arat e

co nv ic ti on s ar is in g o ut of a si ng le act un de r § 9 22 (g ) are m ul ti pl ic it ou s)

.

III.

The co nv ic ti on is affi rm ed an d th e cas e is rem an de d to th e di st ric t cou rt wi th in st ru ct io ns to va cat e th e se nt en ce, m erg e th e two co un ts of co nv ic ti on i n t o on e

co un t, an d re se nt en ce Harr is ba se d o n a si ng le co nv ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-