Opinion ID: 2804084
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Generally, “‘we review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor.’” United States v. Thunder, 745 F.3d 870, 874 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Wright, 739 F.3d 1160, 1167 (8th Cir. 2014)). Alaboudi moved for judgment of acquittal at trial, arguing the government failed to establish the -13- required elements as to each of the four counts. On appeal, though, he does not dispute that the jury heard evidence that, if believed, would establish each of the elements required to support his convictions. Rather he argues only that no reasonable jury could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because of inconsistencies and conflicts in the witnesses’ testimony. This argument leaves us with little to review. “Reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[i]t is axiomatic that [this court does] not pass upon the credibility of witnesses or the weight to be given their testimony.’” United States v. Goodale, 738 F.3d 917, 923 (8th Cir. 2013) (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Clay, 618 F.3d 946, 950 (8th Cir. 2010)), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2856 (2014). “‘Credibility determinations are uniquely within the province of the trier of fact, and are entitled to special deference.’” Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Minnesota, 818 F.2d 664, 666 (8th Cir. 1987)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “‘A trial court has neither the duty nor the authority to grant a motion for acquittal based on the credibility of a witness.’” United States v. Seibel, 712 F.3d 1229, 1237 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Kirkie, 261 F.3d 761, 768 (8th Cir. 2001)), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 273 (2013). We find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Alaboudi’s motion for acquittal based upon the credibility of witness testimony. See id.