Opinion ID: 3013999
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Stubbs first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), because the government only proved the guns were manufactured outside of Pennsylvania.2 Stubbs contends that out-of-state manufacture before he possessed the guns in Pennsylvania is insufficient to establish the interstate commerce element of the offense. We review the sufficiency of the evidence . . . in a light most favorable to the Government following a jury verdict in its favor. See United States v. Gambone, 314 2 There are two guns at issue in this case. They were manufactured in California and Connecticut. Stubbs argues that this only proves the place of manufacturer and not that they traveled in interstate commerce as required by 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). 3 F.3d 163, 169-70 (3d Cir. 2003)(citing United States v. Antico, 275 F.3d 245, 260 (3d Cir. 2001) and Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)). “We must sustain the verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to uphold the jury's decision . . . We do not weigh evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses in making this determination.” Id. (citing United States v. Beckett, 208 F.3d 140, 151 (3d Cir. 2000). Although Stubbs attempts to claim that out-of-state manufacture does not establish travel in interstate commerce, it is now well established that “proof that the possessed firearm had previously traveled in interstate commerce [is] sufficient to satisfy the. . . [] ‘in commerce or affecting commerce’[] nexus requirement.” United States v. Gateward, 84 F.3d 670, 671 (3d Cir. 1996) (citing Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 573 (1997)). Stubbs relies primarily upon United States v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir. 2001) for his argument to the contrary. There, we applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Scarborough in holding “proof . . . that the gun had traveled in interstate commerce, at some point in the past, [is] sufficient to satisfy the interstate element.” Id. at 205. Stubbs claims that Singletary therefore requires direct or “specific testimonial evidence of, or stipulation to, the gun’s post-manufacture travel through interstate commerce.” (Brief at 30). However, this precise requirement exists nowhere in Singletary. It is uncontested that the two guns Stubbs possessed were manufactured in Connecticut and California and that Stubbs possessed them here in Pennsylvania. The district court correctly noted that 4 they got here somehow and they could not have done so without traveling in interstate commerce.3 Here, as in Singletary, the guns in question were manufactured outside of Pennsylvania. Therefore, the jury could conclude that the guns traveled in interstate commerce to get here. Indeed, the jury could conclude nothing else.