United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30810
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAYMOND COLEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CR-50107-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raymond Coleman appeals his conviction, following a jury
trial, for possession of firearms by a felon. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). Coleman challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his conviction. The Government was required to prove
that Coleman “(1) has been convicted of a felony; (2) possessed a
firearm in or affecting interstate commerce; and (3) knew that he
was in possession of the firearm.” United States v. Ferguson,
211 F.3d 878, 885 n.4 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-30810
-2-
citations omitted). “[P]ossession may be actual or
constructive.” United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 348 (5th
Cir. 1993). The evidence submitted at trial was more than
sufficient to prove Coleman’s knowing possession of the firearms.
See United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200, 1212 (5th Cir. 1996)
(“Constructive possession is defined as ‘ownership, dominion or
control over the [firearm] itself or dominion or control over the
premises in which the [firearm] is concealed.’”) (quoting
Mergerson, 4 F.3d at 349).
Coleman also argues that the district court’s refusal to
include his requested jury instruction on the “in or affecting”
commerce element was error. As Coleman acknowledges, this claim
is foreclosed by prior precedent. See United States v. De Leon,
170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.