UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 96-4222

BARRY EARL WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 96-7523

BARRY EARL WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge.
(CR-95-101)

Submitted: November 26, 1996

Decided: January 27, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

No. 96-4222 affirmed and No. 96-7523 vacated and remanded by
unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Calvin R. Depew, Jr., RABINOWITZ, RAFAL, SWARTZ,
TALIAFERRO & GILBERT, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant;
Barry Earl Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Helen F. Fahey, United States
Attorney, Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, Nor-
folk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

These are consolidated appeals of a conviction and sentence and of
the denial of a motion for a new trial. In No. 96-4222, Barry Williams
appeals his conviction and sentence of ninety-six months incarcera-
tion for illegally possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.1 Williams
claims the police illegally searched his car after they arrested him, and
that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to return a guilty ver-
dict. While this appeal was pending before this court, Williams
moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. The district
court denied the motion, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
due to the pending appeal. We now consolidate these appeals and
affirm Williams's conviction and sentence, but vacate the district
court's order denying Williams's new trial motion and remand for
consideration of that motion.

Williams, who was acquitted of armed bank robbery and using a
firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, maintains that the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress a .45 caliber
long-barrel pistol found during an inventory search of the vehicle
Williams was driving when he was arrested by off-duty police offi-
_________________________________________________________________
1 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1994).

                     2
cers. The officers, working as security personnel in the apartment
complex Williams was visiting, arrested Williams for a federal parole
violation and impounded the vehicle.

Inventory searches are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment
when they serve to protect the owners of impounded property from
theft of items contained within the property. Valid inventory searches
also protect the impounding authority from dangerous items and from
false claims for loss.2 While admitting the validity of inventory
searches, Williams complains that this inventory search was a guise
to justify an investigatory search. We disagree. The record is devoid
of any evidence that the officers used the inventory search for more
than the purposes of accountability and safekeeping. Moreover, the
district court found that the apartment complex that employed the off-
duty officers as security personnel had a policy of towing the cars of
persons arrested at the complex. Further, the court found that it was
police policy to inventory all cars that were towed. While neither of
these policies was written, the district court's finding that the officers
followed accepted policies regarding impounding and inventorying
the vehicle fully satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.3
The record supports the district court's finding in this regard; thus, we
will not disturb that finding on appeal.

Next, Williams asserts that the evidence was insufficient to estab-
lish that he knowingly possessed the pistol which was found in the
trunk of the vehicle. The issue is not whether we are convinced by the
evidence on the record, but whether any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.4 There was ample evidence, albeit primarily circumstantial,
allowing for a reasonable inference by the jury that Williams knew
_________________________________________________________________
2 See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 374-76 (1976).

3 See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 376 (1987) (concluding that
"reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures adminis-
tered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment, even though courts
might as a matter of hindsight be able to devise equally reasonable rules
requiring a different procedure").

4 See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).

                     3
that the firearm was in the trunk, and circumstantial evidence is suffi-
cient to establish possession.5

While his direct appeal (No. 96-4222) was pending, Williams
moved the district court for a new trial under FED. R. CRIM. P. 33 on
the ground of newly discovered evidence. The district court denied
that motion on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain
the motion due to the pending appeal on the merits. 6 In No. 96-7523,
Williams appeals the denial of his Rule 33 motion. The district court
erred in denying the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Although Wil-
liams's direct appeal was pending in this court, the district court had
jurisdiction to entertain the motion and either deny the motion on the
merits or certify to this court its intention to grant the motion.7
Accordingly, we vacate the order denying the Rule 33 motion and
remand for consideration of the motion as one now before the district
court with no appeal pending. In doing so, we of course express no
opinion on the merits of the motion. Additionally, we deny Wil-
liams's motion to place his direct appeal (No. 96-4222) in abeyance
and affirm his conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

No. 96-4222 - AFFIRMED

No. 96-7523 - VACATED AND REMANDED
_________________________________________________________________

5 See United States v. Laughman , 618 F.2d 1067, 1077 (4th Cir.) (pos-
session may be proved by circumstantial as well as direct evidence), cert.
denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980).

6 United States v. Williams, No. CR-95-101 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 1996).

7 See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n.42 (1984); Fed. R.
Crim. P. 33 (motion for new trial based on ground of newly discovered
evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judg-
ment, but if appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on
remand of the case).

                    4
