United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 29, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20321
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE ROY WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CR-48-1
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie Roy Williams appeals his convictions for possession
with intent to distribute controlled substances after having been
convicted of two or more felony drug offenses and use of a
firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. He also appeals
his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. We
affirm.
Williams argues that the affidavit used to support the
search warrant at issue contained intentionally false statements
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20321
-2-
in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district
court’s suppression ruling, however, was based on a credibility
determination that is supported by the record; therefore, we will
not disturb it. See United States v. Casteneda, 951 F.2d 44, 48
(5th Cir. 1992). For this same reason, Williams’s appeal of the
denial of his new-trial motion is without merit.
Williams’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are
equally unavailing. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to
find that Williams was a joint occupant of the Chesterfield
residence. Given that drugs were found in plain view on the
kitchen counter and on the kitchen table at which Williams sat
armed with a loaded assault rifle, the evidence also supported a
finding that Williams had knowledge of, access to, and dominion
and control over the contraband sufficient to support a finding
of constructive possession. See United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d
1200, 1212 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d
337, 348 (5th Cir. 1993).
Finally, Williams’s argument that he is entitled pursuant to
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), to resentencing
on his felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm conviction is predicated
on the assumption that the evidence was insufficient to support
his remaining convictions. Given our rejection of his
sufficiency claims, we do not reach this issue.
AFFIRMED.