United States v. Garner, 020819 FED3, 17-1181
|Opinion Judge:||Ambro, Circuit Judge|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES GARNER, a/k/a ABD AL RAHMAN JAMES GARNER, Appellant|
|Attorney:||Kenneth C. Edelin, Jr. Counsel for Appellant William M. McSwain United States Attorney Robert A. Zauzmer Assistant United States Attorney, Chief of Appeals Joseph A. LaBar Office of the United States Attorney Counsel for Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||February 08, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 7, 2019
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-15-cr-00088-001) District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly
Kenneth C. Edelin, Jr. Counsel for Appellant
William M. McSwain United States Attorney Robert A. Zauzmer Assistant United States Attorney, Chief of Appeals Joseph A. LaBar Office of the United States Attorney Counsel for Appellee.
Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
OPINION ON THE COURT
Ambro, Circuit Judge
A grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicted James Garner on charges of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, attempted bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting that crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 924(c)(1). A jury trial resulted in conviction on all charges, and the District Court sentenced Garner to a total of 101 months' imprisonment. (His co-defendant Ruben Marshall, who had not been charged with attempted bank robbery, was acquitted of all charges.) Garner now appeals his conviction, arguing the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish either conspiracy or an attempt to commit armed bank robbery, and therefore the firearm charge fails as well. His principal claim is that the chief witness against him was not credible, and he offers an alternate interpretation of the evidence at trial. But we do not draw inferences in the defendant's favor when reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence, and thus affirm.
We review sufficiency of the evidence "in the light most favorable to the prosecution" to determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418, 424-25 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP