NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0275n.06 F iled: April 12, 2007 No. 05-6866 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
United States of Amer ica, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. Ray mond Cartwrig ht, J r., De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR THE EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: KEN NE DY , M OORE, a nd M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . Ray

mond Cartwrig ht, J r. appe als his felon in possession of a f irea rm and felon in possession of ammunition convictions. His sole argument on appeal is that the evidenc e prese nted at trial wa s i n s ufficie nt to support the jury verdic t. For the rea sons stated below, we AF F I RM the or de rs of

the dis tr ic t c ourt .

I. BACKG ROUND On Octobe r 25, 2003, De tective Ke vin Whi te of the B radle y County Sheriff’ s Offic e (the “Sheriff ’s Off ice” ) obser

ved Appe llant Ray

mond Cartwrig ht, J r. drivinga re d Merc ury Couga r. Detec tive Whit e attempted to stop Appe llant’s vehicle be cause he knew that Appellant wa s driving on a re voked license and that ther e wa s an outstandingwar rant for Appellant’s a

rre st. Although A

ppellant manag ed to eva de De tective White by driving at a hig h rate of spee d, theNo. 05-6866

United States v. Cartwright

- 2 - detec tive and other

members of

the Sheriff

’s Off ice late r stopped and a

rre sted Appellant, who at the time was a

passeng er in a

red Jeep Cheroke e. When Serg eant Tom Wasson sear ched Appellant, he f

ound a .22 ca liber round on Appe llant’s person. On J anuar

y 27, 2004, Detec tive Whit e stopped the same re d Merc ury Couga r af ter he ob se rv e d it

tw ic e c ro ss t

he c e nte r l ine . E arl ie r t

hat da y , a man h a d a

pp ro a c he d D e te c tiv e Da

vid Shoemaker

and De tective White, and the man told the two de tectives that Appe llant had approa ched him and ha d attempted to sell him a shotgun. When the c ar w as stopped, Appe llant
wa s r idi ngin t

he fr on t pa sse ng e r s e at. D e te c tiv e Whit e fo un d s e ve ra l 12 -g a ug e sh otgun

sh e lls , one next to the driver’s se at and the r est in the armr est console of the ca r. At that time, Appellant tol d D e te c tiv e Sho e make r ( 1) that th e sh e lls be lon g e d to Chr is Ph ill ips , ( 2) that th e sh e lls we re in his car be cause Phill ips had g iven Appellant a 12-g aug e Ithaca

shotgun to sell for

him, and (3) that Appellant no long er ha d the gun beca use he ha d g iven it back to Phillips . Offic er Ma skew later r ecove red a

n I thaca pump 12-g aug e shotgun based on infor mation he re ceive d from Appellant. On Marc h 8, 2005, a fe dera l gr and jury returne d a seve n-count sec ond superse ding indictment. Count 1 charg ed Appe llant with being a felon in possession of ammunition arising from the January

2004 incident, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1); Count 2 char g ed Appe llant with beinga fe lon in possession of a fire arm a rising f rom the January

2004 incident, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1) ; Counts 3 and 4 charg ed Appe llant with being a felon in possession of ammunition arising f

rom the Oc tober 2003 incide nt, in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g )(1) ; Count 5 char g ed Appe llant with being a felon in possession of a f irea rm arisingfrom a July

2002No. 05-6866

United States v. Cartwright

Counts 6 a

nd 7 w e re late r d ism iss e d w ith out pr e jud ic e up on

mot ion of the Un ite d St ate s. 1 - 3 - inc ide nt, in v iol atio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 2( g )( 1) ; Co un t 6 c ha rg e d App e lla

nt w iththr e ate nin gto assault and murde r a United States judge with intent to retaliate a g ainst such judg e on ac count of the per formanc e of his off icial duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115; and Count 7 char g ed Appellant with threateningto assault and murde r an A ssistant United St ates Attorne y with intent to retaliate ag ainst such offic ial on acc ount of the per formanc e of his off icial duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115. The district cour

t gr anted Appe llant’s motion to s ever Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 from Counts 6 and 7, and the c ase w ent to trial on the first five counts. At trial, the district cour t 1 g rante d the United States’ motion to dismi ss Count 5 wit h prejudice . Detec tive Shoemaker testified that Appellant ha d confe ssed to him reg ardingthe J anuar y 2004 incident that (1) the shotgun she lls belonge d to Chris P hillips , (2) the she lls were in his ca r bec ause Phillips had give n Appellant a 12- g aug e Ithaca shotgun to sell for

him, and (3) Appe llant no longe r had the g un beca use he ha d g iven it back to Phillips . J ames Raby testified that in J anuar

y of 2004, Appe llant tried to sell him an I thaca pump shotgun. Raby

also testified that althoug h he neve r saw the shotgun be cause he told Appellant that he w as not intereste d in buying it, Appe llant claimed he had the shotgun in the trunk of his ca r whe n he off

ere d to sell it t o Raby
. Appellant pre sented only one witness, his brother

Scott Cartwrig ht. Cartwrig ht testified that Appellant g ave him the r ed Mer cury Couga r about two months prior to the Oc tober 25, 2003 incident. Althoug h Cartwrig ht claimed that he owned the c ar, he admitted that he let Appe llantNo. 05-6866

United States v. Cartwright

- 4 - drive it. Cartwright also testified that the shell involved in the Octobe r 2003 incident wa s his and that hi s f athe r h a d g ive n h im the sh e ll b e fo re he die d. Ho we ve r, Cart wr ig ht t e sti fi e d th at he did not know any

thing a bout the shells involved in the J anuar y 2004 incident. On May 4, 2005, the jury

returne d a ver dict of guilty on Counts 1 and 2, and it returne d a verdic t of not g uilty

on Counts 3 and 4. On May 10, 2005, Appellant filed a motion for a new tr ia l and a re ne we d mo tio n f

or jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l. A pp e lla nt c la ime d th at hi s mo tio ns sh ou ld be g rante d on the basis of insuffic ient evidenc e and the verdic t beingag ainst the manifest we ight of the e vid e nc e . In s up po rt of his c la im, Ap pe lla

nt n ote d th at th e re d Co ug ar b e lon g e d to his brother Scott Cartwr ight; that base d on the testimony at trial, there was no proof that Appellant knowing ly

possessed the she lls; t hat Raby testified that he ne ver sa

w a shotgun; that no other witness testified that he sa w Appellant in the possession of a shotgun; a

nd that there was a

lack of evide nce ty

ing A ppellant to a shotgun. On July 28 , 2 00 5, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e se mot ion s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt fi rs t considere d the motion for judg ment of ac quittal. The court noted that Detec tive Shoemaker testified that Appellant c onfesse d that he had be en try ing to se ll a shotgun f

or Philli ps and that Appellant knew

the shells wer e in the ca

r, as they had come from his attempts to make the sa le. The district cour

t further stated that Appe llant’s confe ssion was consistent with Raby ’s testimony that Appellant had tr ied to sell him a shotgun a nd had told him the gun w as in the trunk of the Couga r. The district c ourt also pointed out that Appellant’s only witness did not offer

any te sti mony a bo ut t he Janu ary

20 04 inc ide nt. Ac c or din g ly , th e c ourt he ld t hat “ the re wa s ampl e evidenc e upon which the jury could have based its finding[t hat Appellant] knowing ly possessedNo. 05-6866

United States v. Cartwright

- 5 - the shotg un shells.” J .A. at 42. The district court re iterate d its discussion of Raby ’s and Detec tive Shoemaker ’s testimony in holding that “the re is suff icient evidenc e to support the conviction on Count 2” also. J .A. at 42. F inally , the district court de nied the motion for a ne w tr ia l on the g ro un ds that “ the re wa s ampl e e vid e nc e up on wh ic h th e jur

y c ou ld h ave ba se d it s verdic t,” ag ain re fer

ringto Appellant’s conf

ession to Detec tive Shoemaker and the testimony

of other witnesse s. J .A. at 44. On Dec ember

1, 2005, Appellant wa s sentence d to a term of imprisonment of 288 months, a term of super

vised rele ase of

5 y ear s, and a $200 spe cial asse ssment. On Dec ember 2, 2005, Appellant filed a

notice of a

ppeal, a ppealingfrom the f

inal judgme nt entere d on Dec ember 1. II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review The standa

rd of r eview f

or a c halleng e to the suff

iciency of the e vidence is “whethe r, afte r viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the e ssential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt.” United States
v . D av is , 473 F.3d 680, 681 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). In assessingthe suffic iency of the e vid e nc e , th is C ourt

wi ll n ot s ub sti tut e its jud g me nt f or that of the jur y , a nd it w ill dr aw a ll available infere nces in fa

vor of the jur

y ’s ver dict. United States v. Paige , 4 70 F .3 d 6 03 , 6 08 (6 th Cir . 2 00 6) (c itatio ns omi tte d) . T his Cir c uit ha s n ote d th at th is s tand ard “ pr e se nts a

ve ry dif fi c ult hurdle for the cr iminal appellant,” Un ite d S tates v . W ink le , 477 F.3d 407, 413 ( 6th Cir. 2007),No. 05-6866

United States v. Cartwright

- 6 - and it has re fer

red to the a

ppellant’s burde n in making suc h a cla im as “a ve ry heavy [one] .” United States v. J

ackson , 473 F.3d 660, 669 ( 6th Cir. 2007). To convict Appe llant, the jury had to find beyond a re asonable doubt that (1) Appe llant
was c onvicted of a

crime punishable by

a ter m of imprisonment ex cee ding one y ear ; (2) Appellant knowing ly

possessed the f

irea rm and the a

mmuniti on; and (3) the ammunition and firea rm was in or a ffe ctinginterstate c ommerce . Un ite d S tates v . S awy e rs , 409 F.3d 732, 735 (6th Cir. 2005). Havingstipulated to elements (1) a nd (3), Appe llant only

contests whethe r he knowing ly

possessed the f

irea rm and the a

mmuniti on. B. Su ff iciency of the Evid ence On appe al, Appellant r elies on this Circuit’s now-vac ated opinion in United States v. Ar no ld , 434 F.3d 396, 404 ( 6th Cir. 2005), which quoted a n opinion from the Ninth Circuit, for the pr op os iti on

that “ me re pr oximi ty

of a we a po n to a pa sse ng e r i n a

c ar g oe s o nly

to i ts
acc essibility , not to the dominion or control which must be proved to e stablish possession.” Appellant cla ims that propositi on should be extended to any ammunition found in a car in which a def endant is a pa sseng er. A

ppellant also re lies heavily on the ar g ument that beca use the Couga r belong ed to his brother a nd his brother a llowed others to drive the ca r, the ammuniti on
c ou ld h ave be lon g e d s ome on e e lse . F ina lly , in c onne c tio n w iththe sh otgun , App e lla nt c la ims that Raby never saw the shotgun in Appellant’s possession and that ther e wa s no evidenc e that Appellant eve r owne d the shotg un. Acc ording ly , Appellant conc ludes that the evide nce a dduced at trial “c annot conc lusively stand to prove be y ond a re asonable doubt that [ he] possessed a firea rm.” Appe llant’s Br . 13.No. 05-6866

United States v. Cartwright

- 7 - Appellant’s insuff

iciency of the e vidence claims must be denied. Ac cordingto Detec tive Shoemaker ’s testimony , Appellant conf essed to havingpossessed a 12- g aug e Ithaca shotgun a

nd to h avin gsh otgun

sh e lls in h is c ar i n c onne c tio n w ithhis atte mpt to s e ll the sh otgun . T his
c on fe ssi on

is c on sis te nt w ithRa

by ’s te sti mony

that App e lla

nt a pp ro a c he d h im a

nd of fe re d to se ll him an I thaca

pump shotgun a

nd that Appellant told him the shotgun wa s in the trunk of the Couga r. Appe llant offer ed no evide nce c ontradictingthe testimony of these two w itnesses. Dra wingall available infere nces in fa vor of the jur

y ’s ver dict, it certa inly

is the case that any
ratio na l tr ie r o f f

a c t c ou ld h ave fo un d b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th at App e lla

nt k no wi ng ly possessed the f

irea rm and the a

mmuniti on. Da v is , 473 F.3d at 681. Indeed, this Circuit has held that “ signe d confe ssions, not suppressed, provide
overwhelming e vidence of [the defe ndant’s] guilt and a re e noug h to support the convictions.” Un ite d S tates v . R e dd

itt , 8 7 F . App ’x 44 0, 44 5 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 3) . A lth ou g h th e de fe nd ant i n Re dd itt signe d a

c on fe ssi on , th is C ir c uit ’s state me nt i n th at c a se a pp lie s w ithe qu a l f

or c e to Ap pe lla nt’ s c on fe ssi on

in t he ins tant c a se . Ind e e d, in s up po rt fo r t he a bo ve pr op os iti on

in Re dd itt , this Ci rcuit quoted the Supre me Court’s statement that wa s not lim ited only to signe d
c on fe ssi on s: “ [a] c on fe ssi on is l ike no oth e r e vid e nc e . Ind e e d, the de fe nd ant’ s o wn c on fe ssi on

is probably the most probative and da mag ing e vidence that can be admitted ag ainst him.” Arizona
v . F ulm ina nte , 499 U.S. 279, 296 (1991) (inter nal quotation omitted). Furthe rmore, whether a confe ssion is si g ned or or al is immaterial if it is believed by the jury , an infe renc e that this Court must draw in light of

the jury ’s ver dict. Paige , 470 F.3d at 608.No. 05-6866

United States v. Cartwright

- 8 - This case is factua lly

simil ar to Un ite d S

tates v . B e nn e tt , 27 F. App’ x 431 (6th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). In Be nn e tt , the def endant wa s convicted of

two counts of fe lon in possession of a firea rm, afte r conf

essingto the purcha se and posse ssion of sever al fire arms. Id. at4 3 2
- 3 4
. In
re je c tin gthe de fe nd ant’ s in su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e argume nt, thi s Co ur t he ld t hat “ the fi rs t element wa s met by

stipulation, t he sec ond was a dmitted in the defenda nt’s confe ssion and
corr oborate d by

further witness testimony , and the third wa s the subject of unc ontested testimony . The de fenda

nt’s insufficienc y

claim thus fails.” Id. at 436. In the instant case , the possession element-the only element that Appe llant disputes-in eac h count was a lso established by Appellant’s c onfession and c orrobor ated by witness testimony . Acc ording ly , Appellant’s
ar g u m e n tmu s tb e r e

j e c t e d i nl i g h to f

th e a f o r e s a i d e v i d e n c e an d

a u th o r i ty. III . C ON CL USI ON F or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , w e AF F I RM the or de rs of the dis tr ic t c ourt .