[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-10455 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 08-00153-CR-A-N
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDREW LEWIS DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(September 17, 2009)
Before CARNES, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Lewis Davis appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Davis presents a single issue
on this appeal: He argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction
because the Government did not show that he was in knowing possession of the guns
in question. Therefore, he argues, the court erred in denying his motion for judgment
of acquittal.
We consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction de novo,
“view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, with all
reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor.”
United States v. Wright, 392 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). A
conviction will not be overturned on the ground of insufficient evidence unless no
rational trier of fact could find that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (quotation omitted). The jury is free to choose among
reasonable constructions of the evidence, and we must accept a jury’s inferences and
determinations of witness credibility. United States v. Williams, 390 F.3d 1319, 1323
(11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); Wright, 392 F.3d at 1273.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), it is unlawful for a felon to possess a firearm that
has affected or traveled in interstate commerce. Because the parties stipulated that
Davis was a convicted felon and that the three guns in question traveled in interstate
commerce, the only factual determination for the jury was whether Davis knowingly
possessed one or more of the guns. Possession can be either actual or constructive.
United States v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328, 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
2
“‘Constructive possession exists when a defendant has ownership, dominion, or
control over an object itself or dominion or control over the premises . . . in which the
object is concealed.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Leonard, 138 F.3d 906, 908 (11th
Cir. 1998)).
The Government produced evidence showing that Davis was in constructive
possession of the guns. Two law enforcement officers, including Davis’s probation
officer, testified that all three of the guns were found in a bedroom of the trailer that
they believed to be Davis’s residence. The officers believed the trailer was Davis’s
residence because Davis had given the trailer’s address to the probation office as his
residential address and Davis’s probation officer had visited Davis at the trailer
several times. While the officers were in the trailer, Davis identified the bedroom
where the guns were found as the one in which he slept. Officer West testified that
Davis told him that the guns were Davis’s. And, Andre Sanderson, who was present
in the trailer when Davis was arrested, testified that Davis lived in the trailer and
owned the guns.
Davis makes several arguments regarding the credibility of the Government’s
evidence and the existence of evidence to the contrary. But, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Government, with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices
3
made in the Government’s favor, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s
conclusion that Davis possessed the guns.
AFFIRMED.
4