United States v. Torres-Perez, 22f4th28

Police in an unmarked car approached a parked pickup in Fajardo; Officer Serrano observed Torres reach into his waistband, remove a handgun with an extended magazine, and throw it onto the truck’s driver seat before fleeing.
The truck contained a Glock on the driver’s seat that officers and an expert testified had visible, homemade alterations (a welded chip/back plate) converting it to fire automatically; the expert demonstrated three rounds fired on one trigger pull.
Torres’s wallet, phone, and a receipt bearing his name were found in the truck, linking him to the vehicle; he was later located, arrested, tried, and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).
The government introduced four firearm-related photographs recovered from Torres’s cell phone to show familiarity with firearms and altered features; the district court admitted them over Torres’s relevance and prejudice objections.
Torres testified that he borrowed the truck, denied ownership of the Glock and the photos, and said he fled because he was scared of plainclothes officers; the jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict under § 922(o) (possession and knowledge)	Evidence showed Torres handled and threw the gun into the truck, his personal items were in the truck, the alterations were visible, and flight indicated consciousness of guilt.	Government failed to prove Torres possessed the gun or knew it had machinegun characteristics.	Affirmed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find possession and that Torres knew the gun’s altered/automatic characteristics.
Admissibility of cell-phone photographs (Rules 401/403)	Photos were relevant to Torres’s knowledge/familiarity with firearms and the altered features; probative value outweighed any prejudice.	Photos were irrelevant to the specific gun, unduly prejudicial, and propensity evidence.	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; photos were relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, and any error was harmless.

United States v. Troy, 583 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review)
United States v. Tanco-Baez, 942 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2019) (elements required to prove § 922(o) offense)
United States v. Nieves-Castaño, 480 F.3d 597 (1st Cir. 2007) (knowledge requirement satisfied by circumstantial evidence and visible indicators)
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1994) (mens rea discussion for weapons offenses; knowledge of characteristics, not legal label)
United States v. Shaw, 670 F.3d 360 (1st Cir. 2012) (admissibility of evidence showing defendant’s familiarity with firearms)
United States v. Velazquez-Fontanez, 6 F.4th 205 (1st Cir. 2021) (standard of review for preserved evidentiary objections and harmless error)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless-error doctrine)