IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30134

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JAMES LAMAR KELLY,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:11-CR-268-1

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Lamar Kelly challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his 

jury-trial conviction for interference, or attempted interference, with an 

aircraft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 32(a)(5) and 32(a)(8), performing, or 

attempted performance, of an act of violence against an individual on an 

aircraft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 32(a)(6) and 32(a)(8), and assault of a federal 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 6, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30134 Document: 00512490137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-30134

officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. (He does not challenge his guilty-plea

theft-of-mail conviction under the same indictment.) 

Kelly moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government’s 

case, after the defense rested, and at the close of all of the evidence; 

accordingly, his claims are reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. Jimenez, 

509 F.3d 682, 690 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). For determining whether 

the evidence was sufficient, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier 

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt”. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in 

original) (citation omitted). 

First, Kelly, who testified, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the three offenses by asserting he has consistently maintained he 

only fired “warning shots” away from the helicopter, which was involved in a 

marijuana-eradication search. The verdict shows the jury believed testimony 

of a state trooper riding in the helicopter and that of the United States Army

pilot flying it that Kelly pointed a firearm at the aircraft, shook the firearm,

and fired shots in the direction of the aircraft, as well as the testimony of two 

law enforcement officers to whom Kelly admitted shooting at the helicopter. 

This credibility finding “was within the sole province of the jury as the fact 

finder”, which “[w]e will not second guess”. United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 

1254, 1260 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).

Second, with respect to Kelly’s assault-of-a-federal-officer conviction, he

asserts the evidence was insufficient to establish an assault occurred because 

any threat was not witnessed by the pilot, but conveyed to the pilot by the 

trooper. The pilot claims he saw Kelly shaking the firearm at him but was 

unable to concentrate on Kelly because he was flying the helicopter. He heard 

2

 Case: 13-30134 Document: 00512490137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-30134

the trooper state that Kelly was shooting at them, and he trusted the trooper’s 

assessment. He then looked back and saw Kelly pointing the firearm at the 

helicopter. The pilot felt fearful, threatened, and intimidated. He took evasive 

action with the helicopter and flew away. In the light of this evidence, a 

rational juror could find Kelly committed the assault beyond a reasonable 

doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319.

Third, Kelly claims he lacked the requisite criminal intent to commit an 

assault against a federal officer because he did not know the pilot was a federal 

officer flying a military helicopter. Rather, Kelly maintains he believed his 

actions were necessary for the lawful defense of himself or his property because 

he could not discern any markings on the helicopter; he gestured for it to 

identify itself or leave; and, he became fearful “it could have been drug 

smugglers” or “gun runners”.

In United States v. Feola, the Supreme Court noted a defendant who does 

not know the victim is a federal officer, and who reasonably believes his actions 

are necessary to defend himself or his property, might lack the requisite 

criminal intent under 18 U.S.C. § 111. 420 U.S. 671, 686 (1975). The Court

was concerned with the possibility of a situation in which a federal officer fails 

to identify himself when his actions “might reasonably be interpreted as the 

unlawful use of force directed either at the defendant or his property”. Id. In 

such a case, “one might be justified in exerting an element of resistance”,

precluding a finding of criminal intent. Id.

The facts at hand do not reflect such a situation because the actions by 

the pilot or the helicopter could not reasonably be interpreted as the unlawful 

use of force against Kelly or his property, justifying the use of a deadly weapon. 

Although Kelly testified the helicopter flew “extremely low” and hovered over 

his property, this description of the helicopter’s behavior was rebutted by the 

3

 Case: 13-30134 Document: 00512490137 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-30134

pilot and trooper, who testified the helicopter flew at an altitude of 

approximately 500 feet and did not hover over Kelly’s property. Kelly also 

admitted he did not see any firearms on the helicopter. And, the jury was 

instructed that Kelly would not be guilty if there was a reasonable doubt he 

was unaware the pilot was a federal officer and if he acted only based on a 

reasonable good-faith belief that he needed to defend himself against an 

assault by a private citizen. See Zuniga, 18 F.3d at 1260.

AFFIRMED.

4

 Case: 13-30134 Document: 00512490137 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/06/2014