UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4132

GARY LEE BEATTY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-86)

Submitted: September 18, 2002

Decided: October 9, 2002

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Kimberly A.

Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Following a jury trial, Gary Lee Beatty was convicted on one count

of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The court sentenced him to 105 months in

prison. Beatty appeals, contending that he is entitled to a new trial

based on a flawed supplemental jury instruction and that the evidence

was insufficient to support his conviction. Finding no merit to his

claims, we affirm. 

Beatty argues that the district court confused the jury by using an

erroneous example when it gave a supplemental jury instruction on

constructive possession. However, the court instructed the jury to disregard the example and the jury is presumed to have followed the

judge’s curative instruction. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 768 n.8

(1987). Beatty also contends that the supplemental jury instruction

was disjointed and the judge’s remarks about the difficulty of defining

constructive possession further confused the jury. In the context of the

record as a whole, any error concerning the constructive possession

instruction was not prejudicial because, as discussed below, we find

that the record supported a finding that Beatty had actual possession

of a firearm. United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 923 (4th Cir. 1997);

United States v. United Med. & Surgical Supply Corp., 989 F.2d

1390, 1406-07 (4th Cir. 1993). 

We disagree with Beatty’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. To support a § 922(g)(1) conviction,

the government must prove that: (1) the defendant previously was

convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding

one year; (2) the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm; and (3)

the possession affected interstate commerce. United States v. Langley,

62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). The parties stipulated to

Beatty’s prior felony conviction and the commerce element. Further2 UNITED STATES v. BEATTY
more, the evidence was sufficient to show that Beatty had actual possession of a firearm. 

A witness saw a man with a gun in a car and a few minutes later

identified Beatty to police as that man. Although the witness was

unable to identify Beatty in court, and there were minor inconsistencies between the witness’s and a police officer’s in-court description

of Beatty on the night of the incident, the witness testified that he was

certain that the man he identified the night of the incident (Beatty)

was the same man he had seen with a gun minutes earlier. Viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we find

the evidence sufficient to support Beatty’s conviction. 

For these reasons, we affirm Beatty’s conviction. 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. BEATTY 3