UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4781

EUGENE ROBERT RICE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge.

(CR-99-513-S)

Submitted: May 23, 2002

Decided: June 11, 2002

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Harry D. McKnett, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M.

DiBiagio, United States Attorney, James M. Webster, III, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Eugene Robert Rice appeals his conviction and 120 month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of

18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000). He contends the jury verdict is

not supported by sufficient evidence and also asserts that the district

court gave insufficient jury instructions defining "possession" under

the statute. 

To determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support a

conviction, this Court considers whether, taking the evidence in the

light most favorable to the government, any reasonable trier of fact

could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). This Court does not

weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. Rather,

the jury verdict must be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Id.

Rice contends the statute requires that the possession of the firearm

have present or imminent interstate impact, however, there is no such

requirement. Evidence showing that the gun traveled in interstate

commerce is sufficient to support a conviction. See United States v.

Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 138 (4th Cir. 2001). Therefore, Rice’s stipulation at trial that the gun had traveled in interstate commerce satisfies

this element. 

As Rice did not timely object to the proposed jury instructions, this

court reviews the district court’s instructions for plain error. See Fed.

R. Crim. Pro. 52(b); United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1001

(4th Cir. 1982). Rice argues that the jury instruction defining "possession" under the statute was confusing and lessened the Government’s

burden of proof. According to Rice, the district court failed to caution

the jury against convicting Rice based on his close proximity to the

firearm. However, the court’s instructions properly defined possession as either actual possession or the power and intention to exercise

control over the firearm. United States v. Jackson, 124 F.3d 607, 610-

11 (4th Cir. 1997). The instruction does not leave room for the confu2 UNITED STATES v. RICE
sion that Rice complains of because the language specifically requires

more than mere proximity to the firearm. 

Rice’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and the

trial court properly instructed the jury regarding possession of a firearm. Accordingly, we affirm Rice’s conviction and sentence. 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

UNITED STATES v. RICE 3