UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4757

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY DEMPS KING, JR.,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00191-D-1)

Submitted: July 8, 2013 Decided: August 5, 2013

Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark R. Sigmon, GRAEBE HANNA & SULLIVAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States 

Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Demps King, Jr., appeals his conviction for 

knowingly possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a 

felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). King claims the 

evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

I.

A.

In the early morning hours of February 9, 2011, the 

Fayetteville, North Carolina, Police Department received a call 

for service regarding shots fired in the parking lot at a local 

club.1 Officers were told that the suspect vehicle was a black 

sport utility vehicle, possibly a Ford Expedition, with one 

headlight out. While en route to the call, Officer John Carro 

observed a vehicle matching that description with one headlight 

out in the parking lot of a gas station. Carro continued 

traveling down the road so as to not alert the occupants of the 

vehicle that he had noticed them. Carro radioed for backup 

before he turned around to approach the vehicle. Detective 

 1 Because the district court returned a guilty verdict, we review 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. See

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en 

banc).
3

Michael Ballard and Officer Jerrod Belanger responded to the 

call for backup. The vehicle left the gas station and Carro 

fell in behind it before initiating a traffic stop. 

Carro opened, but stayed behind, the door of his patrol 

car. He used the car’s public announcement system to order the 

occupants out of the vehicle. The driver indicated that the 

door of the vehicle would not open. Carro repeated his command, 

but none of the four occupants complied. 

By that time, Sergeant Dale Autry, II, arrived on scene 

and, with Ballard and Belanger, approached the passenger side of 

the vehicle. Belanger swung wide to the right to obtain a 

better view of the inside of the vehicle. Both the front and 

rear passenger windows were rolled down. Belanger saw King 

reclined in the front passenger seat, and looking back into the 

vehicle. Belanger ordered King to keep his hands where he could 

see them. Ballard opened the rear passenger door and ordered 

the right-rear passenger out and onto the ground. Autry then 

approached the front passenger seat and ordered King out of the 

vehicle. Autry was able to grab King’s right hand but was 

unable to secure King’s left hand. 

Before Autry was able to secure King, Belanger saw King 

retrieve a firearm from his lap, grab the firearm by the barrel, 

and reach backward between the two front seats. Autry saw some 

type of object in King’s left hand and also saw King place 
4

something underneath the left rear seat of the vehicle, but was 

not sure what the object was. Ballard, who was attempting to 

secure the right rear passenger on the ground next to the 

vehicle, saw King’s left arm between the two front seats, but 

saw nothing in King’s left hand. Ballard grabbed King’s left 

arm and Autry then removed King from the vehicle. 

Ballard walked around to the driver’s side of the vehicle 

and looked at the backseat floorboard where he had observed King 

reach. He discovered a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver on 

the floorboard just in front of the left rear passenger seat of 

the vehicle. Autry asked for a crime scene technician to 

respond to their location to test all of the occupants’ hands 

for gunshot residue (GSR). Three of the four occupants in the 

vehicle were tested for GSR on scene and all three tested 

negative. King, however, resisted any attempt to test him on 

scene, but he was ultimately tested at the police station, where 

officers found gunshot residue on his hands.

B.

The grand jury returned a two-count indictment alleging 

that King possessed a firearm and that he possessed ammunition, 
5

in each instance after having been convicted of a felony.2 After 

a four-day trial, the jury acquitted King on the possession of 

ammunition by a felon charge but convicted him of possession of 

a firearm by a felon. This appeal followed. 

II.

A.

The sole issue before us is whether the district court 

erred in denying King’s motion for judgment of acquittal. King 

contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient 

to allow the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

This presents a question of law which we review de novo. United 

States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005).

King’s conviction can stand only if “there is substantial 

evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government,” to 

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

“[S]ubstantial evidence consists of 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.” United States v. King, 628 F.3d 693, 700 (4th Cir. 

2011)(internal quotations omitted). We can reverse a conviction 

 2 The ammunition charge stems from an event unrelated to the one 

before us. 
6

based upon insufficiency of the evidence only when the 

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

F.3d 390, 394 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citing United States v. 

Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir. 1984)). We must “also assume 

that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in 

favor of the government.” Id. (citing United States v. Sun, 278 

F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, when the evidence tends 

to support differing reasonable interpretations, the 

determination of which interpretation to accept is properly 

within the purview of the jury. United States v. Wilson, 118 

F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). 

B.

King’s sole argument is that there was insufficient 

evidence for the jury to find that he possessed the firearm. He 

contends that the officer who observed the firearm in King’s 

hand--Officer Belanger--was too far away and had an obstructed 

view of the car. Additionally, King relies on the fact that the 

officer who was closest to him--Detective Ballard--saw nothing 

in King’s hand and that he believed King was reaching for 

something in the backseat floorboard. 

King also contends that the results of the GSR test showing 

the presence of gunshot residue on King’s hands could have been 

produced by transfer either (1) from the officers who arrested 
7

him, (2) from the patrol car used to transport him to the police 

station, or (3) from the holding cell in which he was placed 

upon arriving at the police station. 

The government responds that the jury could reasonably 

conclude that King actually possessed the firearm by holding it 

in his left hand and placing it on the backseat floorboard. 

First, says the government, Officer Belanger observed King 

holding the firearm by the barrel, reaching through the center 

console area of the car, and placing the firearm in the backseat 

floorboard. Second, Sergeant Autry saw King with “something in 

his left hand” and that King was “putting something underneath 

the back seat . . . an object of some sort.” Third, Detective 

Ballard observed a firearm in the backseat floorboard where King 

was reaching after King was secured by Sergeant Autry and 

Officer Belanger. Finally, the GSR test showed that King had 

gun shot residue on his hands.

We agree with the government. The totality of the evidence 

the government produced at trial (which we have summarized 

above), viewed in the light most favorable to the government, 

was more than sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The 

jury was also entitled to reject King’s arguments regarding the 

alleged contradictions in the evidence. Sun, 278 F.3d at 313.

King relies upon United States v. Blue, 957 F.2d 106 (4th 

Cir. 1992), in arguing that his conviction should not stand. In 
8

Blue, an officer stopped a vehicle for an alleged seat belt 

violation. Id. at 107. As the officer approached the vehicle, 

he observed Blue--a passenger--“dip” his shoulder as if he were 

reaching under his seat. Id. The officer obtained consent to 

search the vehicle and found a firearm underneath the passenger 

seat. Id. Blue was charged with possession of a firearm by 

felon. Id. The government proceeded on a constructive 

possession theory and relied solely upon two pieces of evidence: 

(1) Blue “dipping” his shoulder as the officer approached the 

vehicle; and (2) the officer’s subsequent discovery of a firearm 

under the passenger seat. Id. at 107-08.

We reversed Blue’s conviction, ruling that in order “[t]o 

uphold a finding of constructive possession, . . . more evidence 

of dominion and control” was required. Id. at 108. We 

concluded that “the government introduced no evidence 

demonstrating that Blue owned the gun or testimony that Blue had 

been seen with the gun.” Id. We also noted that the government 

failed to show “that Blue had ever been in [the car in which the 

gun was found] before.” Id.

King’s reliance upon Blue is misplaced for the simple 

reason that Officer Belanger actually saw King with a firearm in 

his hand. Additionally, the evidence at trial showed that King 

frequently used the vehicle in which police found the gun, as it 
9

belonged to King’s mother. Blue, therefore, is of no help to 

King.

We affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED