Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry SEDBERRY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-27
Citations: 172 F. App'x 574
Docket Number: No. 05-50725
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry SEDBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 574–574

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry SEDBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-50725.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided March 27, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Samuel L. Martinez, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry Sedberry appeals from his jury-verdict conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Sedberry contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed a firearm. As Sedberry concedes he did not move for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the Government's case or at the close of all evidence.
When viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the evidence shows that Sedberry knowingly possessed the firearm. The arresting officer positively identified Sedberry as the person he observed in the gas station and also as the person he saw drop the handgun. The jury was free to accept as credible the testimony of the officer and to find Sedberry guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See United States v. Lindell, 881 F.2d 1313, 1322 (5th Cir.1989). Accordingly, Sedberry's conviction does not constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Griffin, 324 F.3d 330, 356 (5th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not he published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.