Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Boyd SOUTHERN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-11
Citations: 194 F. App'x 141
Docket Number: No. 05-5014
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Boyd SOUTHERN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 141–142

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Boyd SOUTHERN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-5014.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 22, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 11, 2006.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Megan J. Schueler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Boyd Southern appeals his convictions after a trial for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), 924(a)(2) (2000), and two counts of knowingly possessing stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j), 924(a)(2) (2000). Southern contends the evidence was insufficient to show he had knowledge the firearms were stolen. He further contends Congress cannot criminalize the possession of firearms where the only evidence of interstate commence is that the weapons once moved across state lines. He further contends his ninety-seven month sentence is unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. See United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.1997). "[A]n appellate court's reversal of a conviction on grounds of insufficiency of evidence should be 'confined to cases where the prosecution's failure is clear.' " United States v. Jones, 735 F.2d 785, 791 (4th Cir.1984) (quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)). In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, "[t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained 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, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). "[Substantial evidence is 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. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc).
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not "weigh the evidence or review the credibility of the witnesses." United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir.1997). Where the evidence supports differing reasonable interpretations, the jury decides which interpretation to believe. Id. Furthermore, "[t]he Supreme Court has admonished that we not examine evidence in a piecemeal fashion, but consider it in cumulative context." Burgos, 94 F.3d at 863 (citations omitted). "The focus of appellate review, therefore, . is on the complete picture, viewed in context and in the light most favorable to the Government, that all of the evidence portrayed." Id.
We find there was substantial evidence to support the finding that Southern had knowledge the firearms were stolen. In addition, there is no merit to Southern's challenge to the interstate nexus requirement. United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134, 137-38 (4th Cir.2001). We also find Southern's sentence reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006).
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions 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