case, the government presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a rea sonable doubt that Vu was in knowing possession of a firearm — the only element that Vu has challenged on appeal. As the record shows, the government presented Officer White’s testimony at trial that she saw Vu make a quick movement toward his waistline and then throw an object, which she recognized as a firearm, over the fence. Officer Bell subsequently discovered a loaded Bersa .380 handgun on the opposite side of the fence from where Vu stood. When he picked it up, it felt warm, as though it recently had been against a person’s body. Officer White testified further that Vu admitted he used the gun for his protection and that he threw it because he did not want to go back to jail. See Beckles, 565 F.3d at 841 (<HOLDING>). In addition to Vu’s incriminating statement
holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless holding that possession of a sawed off shotgun is a crime of violence holding the evidence sufficient to establish the defendants knowing possession of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt when among other things the defendant admitted to a law enforcement officer that he had acquired the shotgun for his protection and that officers testimony went uncontradicted at trial holding that possession of a pistol in public requires knowing possession holding police officers uncontradicted testimony that defendant admitted he acquired shotgun for protection sufficient to establish knowing possession