Opinion ID: 47066
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: On appeal, Lamb first contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the government failed to prove that either the firearm or the ammunition was manufactured outside of Florida. He argues that there was no evidence as to: (1) whether the markings on the firearm, indicating the location of the manufacturer, were original, and when and by whom they were placed on the firearm; (2) whether the serial number on the firearm was correct; (3) whether the ammunition actually was made by Federal Cartridge; and (4) what database was used to determine where the ammunition was manufactured, how reliable it was, and whether or not anyone other than the government had access to it. In addition, Lamb argues that, unlike in United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387 (11th Cir. 1996), where there was evidence that the firearm had been shipped out of state, and United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2001), where there was testimony that the firearm had moved in interstate commerce, here, there was no evidence of any connection to interstate commerce, because the evidence showed only that the items “somehow” had made their way to Florida. Lamb concedes that United States v. Dupree, 258 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2001), is authority to the contrary. 3 “Whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support [an] appellant[’s] conviction[] is a question of law subject to de novo review.” United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d 1065, 1084 (11th Cir. 2001). We “review[] the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether a reasonable jury could have concluded that the evidence established the appellant[’s] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government and all reasonable inferences and credibility determinations are made in the government’s favor.” Id. To establish a violation of § 922(g)(1), the government must show, inter alia, that the firearm or ammunition possessed “was in or affected interstate commerce.” United States v. Funches, 135 F.3d 1405, 1406-07 (11th Cir. 1998). In McAllister, we held that § 922(g) requires only a minimal nexus to interstate commerce. 77 F.3d at 390. We concluded that evidence that a gun manufactured in California and shipped to South Carolina was sufficient to establish the nexus. McAllister, 77 F.3d at 390. Likewise, in Scott, we held that testimony that the firearm possessed by the defendant was manufactured in California and had moved in interstate commerce to Georgia, where the defendant was arrested with it, was sufficient to establish nexus to interstate commerce. Scott, 263 F.3d at 1274. Finally, in Dupree, we held that the government can establish § 922(g)’s element of interstate commerce by showing that the defendant 4 possessed a firearm that was manufactured out of state. Dupree, 258 F.3d at 1260. The evidence that the firearm and the ammunition were manufactured outside of Florida, the items made their way to Florida, and Lamb possessed the firearm, containing the ammunition, in Florida, was sufficient under current precedent to establish the interstate commerce nexus.