United States of America v. James Gooding

*The Honorable D avid W . McKeague, United States District Judge
for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
1
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0442P (6th Cir.)
File Name: 03a0442p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMES GOODING,
Defendant-Appellant.
X
-
-
-
->
,
-
-
N
No. 03-5314
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville.
No. 02-00079—Thomas G. Hull, District Judge.
Submitted: December 2, 2003
Decided and Filed: December 12, 2003
Before: MARTIN and MOORE, Circuit Judges;
McKEAGUE, District Judge.*
2 United States v. Gooding No. 03-5314
_________________
COUNSEL
ON BRIEF: Terry Hurst, Newport, Tennessee, for
Appellant. Paige Auer Winck, ASSISTANT UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. James Gooding
appeals from a criminal judgment and commitment order
following a jury trial where he was found guilty of being a
felon in possession of a handgun in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). The parties have agreed to waive
oral argument and, upon examination, this panel unanimously
agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P.
34(a).
I.
The evidence presented at trial, construed in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, reflects the following sequence
of events that led to this appeal. On December 27, 2001,
Nancy Bridgeman and Amber Thomas were in their Johnson
City, Tennessee, apartment when they heard a “commotion”
coming from downstairs. An uninvited man entered the
apartment. Both women testified that they were not
previously acquainted with this man, who was later identified
as Gooding. Gooding pulled a gun from his waistband and
placed it on a couch and asked the women whether he could
leave the gun in their possession for the moment. Gooding
further explained that he would be in trouble if he was caught
in possession of a gun. Additionally, Gooding allegedly
inquired as to the whereabouts of a downstairs resident named
“Kim”–apparently a reference to Kim Carroll–and stated that

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-5314 United States v. Gooding 3
he intended to kill her. Bridgeman denied Gooding’s request
to leave the gun in the apartment, but he nevertheless exited
the apartment without the gun. Thomas placed the gun in a
plastic bag and returned it to Gooding who, by this time, had
returned to his truck located in the building’s parking lot.
One of the women then summoned the police.
Gooding’s version of the events, however, differs
significantly from the preceding testimony. Gooding claimed
that he went to the apartment building in an effort to rescue
his wife, an alleged drug addict, who frequently obtained
drugs from a tenant in the building. Gooding testified that he
went to the apartment building after he had received a phone
call from his wife who stated that she was at Kim Carroll’s
apartment and that she desired to leave, but she did not have
the money to pay for the drugs that she had consumed. After
his failed attempt to convince his wife to come out of the
apartment, Gooding testified that he told his wife through the
apartment door that he was going to summon the police.
Gooding testified that her response was that he had better not
call the police because the gun–that she had allegedly
purchased for security purposes while Gooding was in
prison–was located in the truck. Gooding testified that he
returned to the truck and discovered the gun. In a panic,
Gooding claimed that he brought the gun upstairs to leave it
with Bridgeman whom he had recognized from his frequent
visits to the building to retrieve his wife and had even spoken
to on occasion. Bridgeman allegedly allowed Gooding to
leave the gun in the apartment.
Johnson City police officer, Paula Norris, answered the call
to the apartment building. Officer Norris testified that she
initially drove past the entrance to the parking lot, but she saw
in her rearview mirror an individual traveling on foot who
matched the description of the suspect with the gun. Officer
Norris turned her cruiser around and entered the parking lot.
She encountered a truck driven by the man that she saw in her
rearview mirror. Officer Norris stopped her cruiser, exited,
and ordered the driver of the truck to exit his vehicle. The
4 United States v. Gooding No. 03-5314
driver, Gooding, eventually complied and submitted to a pat-
down search. Officer Norris did not find a gun on Gooding’s
person. Upon Gooding’s refusal to cooperate with her
directions to remain seated, Officer Norris placed Gooding in
handcuffs. After a search of his vehicle failed to reveal a gun,
Officer Norris retraced Gooding’s steps and discovered a
plastic bag that contained a loaded handgun. Gooding
immediately denied ownership of the gun. Norris turned the
gun over to another officer who placed Gooding under arrest.
Gooding was indicted for illegally possessing a firearm.
The case proceeded to a two-day jury trial after which the jury
found Gooding guilty of possession of a firearm after having
been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2), after just ninety minutes of
deliberations. The district court sentenced Gooding to an
eighty-eight month term of imprisonment and a three-year
period of supervised release. This timely appeal followed.
II.
The only issue presented for this court’s consideration is
whether Gooding’s conviction is supported by sufficient
evidence in the record. In general, this court will reject a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a
judgment when, after construing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, “any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979). This court will neither weigh the evidence nor
independently assess the credibility of the witnesses
presented. United States v. Talley, 164 F.3d 989, 996 (6th
Cir. 1999). There is a suggestion in the case at bar that
defense counsel may not have made a timely motion at trial
for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Failure to make this motion
“constitutes a waiver of any objection to the sufficiency of the
evidence” with the result that this court “will not reverse
absent a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Nesbitt,

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-5314 United States v. Gooding 5
90 F.3d 164, 167 (6th Cir. 1996). An examination of the
record and briefs does not reflect that Gooding’s trial counsel
made a Rule 29 motion but, in any event, we find this of little
consequence because there is sufficient evidence under either
standard to support the judgment on appeal.
“To obtain a conviction pursuant to § 922(g)(1), the
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that
the defendant has a prior conviction for a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) that the
defendant thereafter knowingly possessed the firearm and
ammunition specified in the indictment; and (3) that the
possession was in or affecting interstate commerce.” United
States v. Daniel, 134 F.3d 1259, 1263 (6th Cir. 1998)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In this appeal, there is no
dispute as to any element of this charge other than the firearm
possession.
This case presents nothing more than the standard
application of Jackson v. Virginia. Under Jackson, there was
patently sufficient evidence from which any rational trier of
fact could have concluded that Gooding knowingly possessed
the firearm. Gooding himself admitted to a brief, voluntary
possession of the gun. Moreover, there was ample testimony
adduced at trial to rebut Gooding’s version of the events.
Notably, in addition to conflicting with the testimony of
Bridgeman and Thomas, Gooding’s testimony also differed
from that of the rebuttal witnesses. Indeed, Gooding’s wife
contradicted virtually every detail of Gooding’s account of
their relationship and the events of that night. Specifically,
Gooding’s wife contradicted Gooding’s testimony that his
actions were that of a dutiful and loving husband by testifying
that Gooding had actually left her to live with another
woman. Additionally, Gooding’s wife denied ownership of
the gun. Moreover, she denied that she was using drugs on
the night of the incident and denied that she was present at the
apartment building on the night in question. Furthermore,
Kim Carroll also denied her presence at the apartment on the
night of the incident. In light of this evidence, we conclude
6 United States v. Gooding No. 03-5314
that Gooding’s conviction was supported by sufficient
evidence in the record.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.

-- 3 of 3 --