Cite as U.S. v. Adams, 438 F.2d 644 (8th Cir. 1971)

               UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

                               v.

                    Alfred ADAMS, Appellant.

                           No. 20219.

         United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

                         Feb. 16, 1971.

     Robert L. Rodarte, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

     Bert C. Hurn, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and Anthony P.
Nugent, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

     Before CLARK, Associate Justice,* BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, and
HARPER, District Judge.

     PER CURIAM.

     Alfred Adams, defendant-appellant, appeals from a judgment of
conviction in a jury-waived case of possessing a firearm not
registered in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. section 5861(d). 
Defendant's only contention of error is that the evidence is
insufficient to support the judgment.

     In determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, this
court in Latham v. United States, 407 F.2d 1, 2 (8th Cir. 1969),
stated the standard that is to be applied in cases of this nature:

          "In cases of this kind, it is settled law that in
     determining the sufficiency of the evidence to justify a
     guilty verdict, we must sustain the verdict if there is
     substantial evidence in support thereof when viewed in the
     light most favorable to the Government. (Citing cases.)"

     Viewed in this light, the pertinent facts are as follows:
Detectives Armstrong, Eapman and Luther, and Officer Smith were on
duty with the Kansas City Police Department on May 18, 1969.  They
overheard a radio call which informed them that three men armed
with guns were on a rooftop across from a cafe.  Being in the area,
they proceeded to the scene.  Detective Armstrong testified that in
approaching the reported area he saw three men on the roof. 
Armstrong then identified the defendant as one of the three men on
the roof, stated that he observed the defendant throw down a gun,
and that he followed the gun from the defendant's hand to where it
landed, and thereafter immediately retrieved the gun.  Eapman
testified that the defendant was one of the three men that ran from
the roof and that he then pursued the defendant and captured him. 
Luther testified that the defendant was on the roof and that he
threw a shotgun down.  In his own behalf, the defendant took the
stand and stated that he was neither on the roof nor was he in the
possession of a gun.   The defendant's testimony was corroborated
by Aaron Kelly.

     The defendant's position on appeal is that he cannot be said
to be in possession of a gun when the evidence only establishes
that he threw the gun down.  The defendant contends that the evi-
dence does not establish possession.  In light of the testimony of
Detectives Armstrong, Eapman and Luther, such a contention is
frivolous.

     The judge was warranted from the evidence in finding the
defendant guilty of the crime with which he was charged.  See
Kayser v. United States, 394 F.2d 601, 604 (8th Cir. 1968), cert.
den. 393 U,S. 919, 89 S.Ct. 250, 21 L.Ed.2d 206 (1968);     
Moodyes v. United States, 400 F.2d 360, 363 (8th Cir. 1968), cert.
den. 397 U.S. 998, 90 S.Ct. 1141, 25 L.Ed.2d 407 (1970); and Latham
v. United States, supra.

     Affirmed.

                            FOOTNOTES

* The Honorable Tom C. Clark, retired Associate Justice of the
United States Supreme Court, sitting by special designation.