Opinion ID: 2787602
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the defendant previously had been

Text: convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year; (2) the defendant knowingly possessed, transported, shipped, or received, the firearm; and (3) the possession was in or affecting commerce, because the firearm had travelled in interstate or foreign commerce at some point during its existence. United States v. Langley, 62 F.3d 602, 606 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Appellants do not dispute that they are all convicted felons. Instead, they contest whether the government proffered sufficient evidence proving the second and third elements. The convictions under § 922(g)(1) arose from the third robbery. Witnesses described the firearms used in this robbery as having unique features (such as a drum-style magazine) that matched features of the firearms found at Cannon’s house. Based on the similarity of the firearms and their discovery in Cannon’s house within hours of the robbery, a reasonable jury could conclude that the firearms were the same. The natural result of that conclusion is that the firearms traveled in interstate commerce by going from D.C. to Virginia and back. See 18 U.S.C. § 10 (defining “interstate commerce” as including 25 “commerce between one State” and “the District of Columbia”); United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 471 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting that travel across a state line constitutes interstate commerce). Although the government did not prove that each coconspirator actually held a firearm on December 22, their constructive possession of the firearms is sufficient to support a § 922(g)(1) conviction. United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 343 (4th Cir. 2008). As a result, a reasonable jury could convict Appellants under § 922(g)(1).