Opinion ID: 2997164
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Under usual circumstances, when a defendant challenges his conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask only whether, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence was sufficient “to allow a rational trier of fact to find all of the essential elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Owens, 301 F.3d 521, 528 (7th Cir. 2002). Mr. Whitlow, however, failed to preserve this issue for review because he did not renew his motion for acquittal at the close of all of the evidence. See id. at 527-28. Consequently, we shall reverse Mr. Whitlow’s conviction “only if his conviction[ ] amount[s] to a manifest miscarriage of justice,” that is, “ ‘if the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt, or if the evidence on a key element of the offense was so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.’ ” Id. at 528 (quoting United States v. Taylor, 226 F.3d 593, 597-98 (7th Cir. 2000)). Mr. Whitlow’s argument with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence is a narrow one. He does not argue that the weapons that form the bases for counts seven through ten were never in his possession in some form. He also acknowledges that, when located by the Government, the weapons had been modified to operate as machineguns. Mr. Whitlow’s argument is, essentially, that the Government failed 12 No. 03-4222 to prove that, at the time he possessed the weapons on or about May 17, 2001, they already had been modified to operate in fully automatic mode. The evidence is more than sufficient to support a jury’s conclusion that Mr. Whitlow possessed the guns in modified form. There was testimony that Mr. Whitlow had the knowledge and skill to modify a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon. Furthermore, among the items taken from Mr. Whitlow’s storage unit and found in the U- Haul were parts used to make automatic weapons as well as tripods on which to mount such weapons. Finally, the individuals who possessed the guns after May 17, 2001, testified that they had not altered the weapons to operate in automatic mode. At bottom, Mr. Whitlow’s argument is that it was possible that another individual modified the weapons between the time that they were removed from the J-11 unit on May 17, 2001, and the time that they were recovered by the Government. However, “[i]f the government proves its case by circumstantial evidence, it need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence so long as the total evidence permits a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Rose, 12 F.3d 1414, 1420 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, there was evidence that Mr. Whitlow originally possessed the weapons, that he knew how to modify the weapons, that he had the materials to modify the weapons, that he had the necessary equipment (tripods) to operate the weapons in automatic mode and that the other individuals in contact with the weapons did not alter the weapons. This evidence, even if it leaves open other possibilities, permits a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that, on or about May 17, 2001, Mr. Whitlow possessed the machineguns on which counts seven through ten are based. No. 03-4222 13