Court Opinion

ID: 9352607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 00:00:36.321102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:57.489262
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-11267        Document: 00516600958             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/06/2023

               United States Court of Appeals
                    for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                 January 6, 2023
                                       No. 21-11267
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Nygel Dejon Freeman,

                                                                 Defendant—Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 5:19-CR-96-1

   Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:
           Nygel Dejon Freeman appeals his jury trial conviction for possession
   of a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). *
   He argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed a firearm.
           Because Freeman preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the
   evidence, we review the claim de novo but afford “great deference” to the

           *
            At the time of Freeman’s offense and sentencing, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) set forth
   the imprisonment term for an 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) offense. Effective June 25, 2022, the
   penalty provision moved to 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8).
Case: 21-11267      Document: 00516600958           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                     No. 21-11267

   jury verdict. United States v. Zamora-Salazar, 860 F.3d 826, 831 (5th Cir.
   2017) (quotation omitted). We evaluate the evidence in the light most
   favorable to the Government and draw all reasonable inferences in support of
   the verdict. United States v. Terrell, 700 F.3d 755, 760 (5th Cir. 2012). The
   sufficiency standard remains the same whether the evidence is direct or
   circumstantial: “whether any rational trier of fact could have found the
   essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
   Huntsberry, 956 F.3d 270, 279 (5th Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted).
          Although the Government presented no direct evidence of
   possession, a reasonable jury could conclude that Freeman possessed the
   firearm. The jury saw videos of Freeman running from the police—first in
   his car and then on foot. And it heard testimony that suspects who run often
   have narcotics or weapons in their possession. United States v. Martinez, 190
   F.3d 673, 678 (5th Cir. 1999) (“Evidence of an accused’s flight is generally
   admissible as tending to establish guilt.”). The Government also presented
   evidence that police recovered the gun in a field about twenty feet from
   Freeman’s flight path. The jury heard testimony that a grown man could
   easily have thrown the two- or three-pound gun this distance. And officers
   testified that Freeman gave up the chase not far from where they located the
   gun. The jury also learned that there was a major storm the night before the
   incident that would have left certain marks on a gun, and then it heard
   testimony that the gun did not bear any such markings. Finally, witnesses
   familiar with the area testified that they had never seen anyone enter the field
   and they would not expect to find a weapon there. From this evidence, the
   jury could easily infer that the firearm was only in the field for a brief time,
   and that Freeman threw it into the field before surrendering to police.
          Our highly deferential review compels us to conclude that “the
   totality of the evidence permits a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable

                                          2
Case: 21-11267     Document: 00516600958          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                   No. 21-11267

   doubt.” United States v. Nieto, 721 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2013) (quotation
   omitted).
         AFFIRMED.

                                        3