Opinion ID: 809048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Ponds argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a judgment of acquittal. In reviewing claims as to the sufficiency of evidence, we draw all inferences in favor of the jury verdict. See United States v. Riley, 621 F.3d 312, 329 (3d Cir. 2010). Because Ponds did 4 not file a motion for acquittal, this court reviews his sufficiency claim under a plain error standard. See United States v. Gordon, 290 F.3d 539, 547 (3d Cir. 2002). To establish that Ponds violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Ponds had a prior felony conviction punishable by more than one year imprisonment; (2) the firearm traveled in interstate commerce; and (3) Ponds “knowingly possessed” the firearm. United States v. Dodd, 225 F.3d 340, 344 (3d Cir. 2000). The first two elements were stipulated at trial, and Ponds contests only the sufficiency of the evidence of the “knowing possession” element. To prove this element, the Government only needed to prove Ponds’ awareness that he possessed a firearm. See id. Karl Ponds testified that he “took the gun away [from William] and just placed it on the ground.” Supp. App. at 105. Even this brief possession of the firearm is sufficient to support a conviction under § 922(g)(1). See, e.g., United States v. Mercado, 412 F.3d 243, 251 (1st Cir. 2005) (evidence that a defendant “held the firearm for a few seconds” could properly support a § 922(g) conviction). Ponds’ ineffective assistance claim thus also fails.1 See Thomas v. Horn, 570 F.3d 105, 121 n.7 (3d Cir. 2009) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim where there was no merit to defendant’s underlying claim of error). 1 While this court generally does not entertain ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal, there is a “narrow exception” when the facts in the existing record are “sufficient to allow determination of ineffective assistance of counsel.” United States v. Headley, 923 F.2d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir. 1991). 5