Opinion ID: 3013334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assault on a Federal Officer

Text: Greig challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for assault on a federal officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) & (b). Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence after a guilty verdict is “highly deferential.” United States v. Hart, 273 F.3d 363, 371 (3d Cir. 2001). [W]hen deciding whether a jury verdict rests on legally sufficient evidence it is not for us to weigh the evidence or to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Rather, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable 17 to the government, and will sustain the verdict if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Smith, 294 F.3d 473, 478 (3d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). The Government introduced evidence that Greig obtained a gun after Patrick and the CI left the Pearson Housing Community on the morning of April 12, 1999, and that, according to Williams, Greig announced his intention to rob them. Later, when Patrick refused to purchase a second ounce of “crack” and attempted to leave the alley where the transaction occurred, Greig pulled him back. Greig also struggled with Patrick until he shoved Greig away and turned to escape. Someone — Patrick did not see which individual — then fired a gun. Patrick perceived that the gun had been fired at him. He turned around and saw Greig and the CI with Williams close by. Greig then fled into an apartment where he handed a gun to Williams. When authorities retrieved the gun from the balcony of another apartment, they found that it had been fired. We hold that a rational jury could have concluded from this evidence that Greig, while using a deadly weapon, assaulted a federal officer.7 Accordingly, we affirm his conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) & (b).