F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
FEB 6 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 00-4190
v.
HIEN VAN TIEU,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
(D.C. No. 99-CR-329-C)
Wayne T. Dance, Assistant United States Attorney (Michelle M. Christiansen,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Paul M. Warner, United States Attorney, on
the brief), Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Breeze, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before EBEL, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
In 1997, Defendant Hien Van Tieu was released on parole after serving time
for a felony conviction. As part of his parole agreement, Defendant consented to
regular visits to his residence by parole officers, and to searches
of his premises based upon reasonable suspicion of a crime or parole violation.
During the course of a search, parole officers discovered a semi-automatic 9mm
pistol and a magazine containing 35 rounds of ammunition between the mattresses
in Defendant’s bedroom. Defendant lived in his parents’ home with several other
relatives and family friends. The door to his bedroom did not lock and others in
the home had access to the room.
A jury subsequently convicted Defendant of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to
41 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. Defendant appeals,
asserting (1) the district court’s jury instructions constituted an unlawful
constructive amendment of the indictment, and (2) the evidence at trial was
insufficient to support a finding that he knowingly possessed a firearm. We
exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
II.
Section 922(g)(1) provides: “It shall be unlawful for any person who has
been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year . . . [to] possess in or affecting commerce any firearm or
ammunition.” 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). At trial, the Government introduced
evidence that Defendant possessed both the firearm and ammunition. The jury
instructions set forth the elements of the crime under the statute, and specifically
2
instructed that a guilty verdict could be based on knowing possession of either a
firearm or ammunition. 1
The district court provided a special verdict form which
required the jury to rule separately and unanimously on each. 2
The jury returned a
guilty verdict on knowing possession of a firearm and a guilty verdict on knowing
possession of ammunition. After trial, the district court granted Defendant’s
motion to vacate the ammunition verdict because the Government did not
establish that the ammunition had traveled in or affected interstate commerce as
required under the statute. The district court then sentenced Defendant for a
single violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
1
The jury instructions read, in relevant part:
The second element which the government must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt is that on or about the date set forth in the indictment the defendant
knowingly possessed the firearm as charged in the indictment or knowingly
possessed the ammunition as charged in the indictment.
The government is not required to prove that the defendant possessed both
the firearm described in the indictment and the ammunition. If all twelve
of you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
knowingly possessed the firearm or if all twelve of you find beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly possessed the ammunition the
second element is satisfied.
2
The district court submitted the special verdict form to address
Defendant’s concern that the jury might convict Defendant for possession of a
firearm or ammunition without unanimously finding the defendant possessed
either one. Defendant agreed that the special verdict form addressed this
concern, but continued to object to the inclusion of the ammunition charge as a
basis for a guilty verdict.
3
II.
Defendant argues the district court erred in instructing the jury that he
could be convicted for possessing ammunition. According to Defendant, this
instruction constitutes a constructive amendment to the indictment. The grand
jury indictment charged Defendant with possession of: “a firearm and semi-
automatic weapon, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3) and (30), to wit, a
INTRATEC 9mm pistol TEC-DC9, serial number D073183, with a magazine
containing 35mm rounds of ammunition, all in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1)(emphasis added).” Defendant claims that the indictment’s use of the
term “with” instead of an “and” limits his jeopardy to possession of a firearm. We
review de novo the legal question of whether the district court proceedings
constructively amended the indictment. United States v. Moore , 198 F.3d 793,
795 (10th Cir. 1999).
The prohibition on constructive amendments is derived from (1) the Fifth
Amendment which limits a defendant’s jeopardy to offenses charged by a grand
jury, and (2) the Sixth Amendment which guarantees the defendant notice of the
charges against him. Id. A constructive amendment occurs when the Government,
through evidence presented at trial, or the district court, through instructions to the
jury, broadens the basis for a defendant’s conviction beyond acts charged in the
indictment. United States v.Gauvin , 173 F.3d 798, 805 (10th Cir. 1999). To
4
constitute a constructive amendment, the district court proceedings must modify an
essential element of the offense or raise the possibility that the defendant was
convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment. Id. Where an
indictment properly pleads violation of a statute, and the defendant was not misled
about the nature of the charges, his substantive rights are not prejudiced. Moore ,
198 F.3d at 795 .
Though not perfectly drafted, the indictment clearly charges defendant with
a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A violation of § 922(g)(1) occurs if
Defendant knowingly possessed “any firearm or ammunition.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). The indictment refers both to the firearm and ammunition, giving
notice of the factual basis of the offense. The indictment’s description of a
“firearm with ammunition” rather than a “firearm or ammunition” does not, as
Defendant claims, modify an element of the offense or allow conviction for an
offense other than that charged. See Moore , 198 F.3d at 795-96. A review of the
record confirms Defendant was not misled by the terms of the indictment.
Defendant introduced evidence challenging his knowing possession of both the
firearm and the ammunition. Both were found together between the mattresses in
Defendant’s bedroom and his defense to knowing possession was identical for
each. We conclude Defendant was not misled by the indictment or prejudiced by
the jury instructions.
5
In any event, Defendant’s constructive amendment claim is subject to
review for harmless error. See United States v. Prentiss , 256 F.3d 971, 983-84
(10th Cir. 2001)(en banc)(holding defects in an indictment are subject to harmless
error review). Even if we assumed the jury instructions improperly allowed the
jury to convict for possession of ammunition, the error was rendered harmless
when the district court dismissed the ammunition charge. The special verdict
form required the jury to unanimously determine whether Defendant knowingly
possessed a firearm and the jury returned a guilty verdict on this charge. The
district court sentenced Defendant solely on his possession of the firearm. The
special verdict and the post-trial proceedings clearly render harmless any possible
error presented by the jury instructions. See id. at 984.
III.
Defendant next argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
support a finding that he knowingly possessed a firearm or ammunition as
required under § 922(g)(1). We review sufficiency of evidence claims de novo.
See United States v. Vallo , 238 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir. 2001). Evidence is
sufficient to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could have found the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 1247. In reviewing the evidence, we do
not weigh conflicting evidence or consider witness credibility, as that duty is
6
delegated exclusively to the jury. United States v. Sanders , 240 F.3d 1279, 1281
(2001). We resolve any conflicts in the evidence in favor of the Government. Id.
A conviction under § 922(g)(1) requires the government to prove (1)
knowing possession; (2) by a restricted person; (3) of any firearm or ammunition
that has traveled in or affected interstate commerce. United States v. Heckard ,
238 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2001). The parties stipulated that Defendant was
a restricted person under 18 U.S.C. § 922 and that the firearm traveled in
interstate commerce. Defendant asserts, however, that the evidence at trial did not
establish his knowing possession.
The Government may meet its burden of proof by showing constructive
possession; actual possession is not required. Id. To establish constructive
possession, the Government must show the defendant “knowingly holds the power
to exercise dominion or control over the firearm.” Id. If the defendant has
exclusive possession of the premises, knowledge and control are properly
inferred. Id. If the defendant is not in exclusive possession, the Government
must show a connection or nexus between the defendant and the firearm. Id. 3
3
The Government asserts Defendant had exclusive possession of the
bedroom, arguing that evidence other family members had access to the room is
insufficient to show joint occupancy. Because we conclude the Government
presented evidence sufficient to support a finding of knowing possession in a
jointly occupied premises, we need not determine whether Defendant had
exclusive possession.
7
To support a conviction for knowing possession where there is evidence of joint
occupancy, the Government must offer “evidence supporting at least a plausible
inference that the defendant had knowledge of and access to the weapon.” Id. We
conclude the government met this burden.
Parole officers found the firearm in the bedroom Defendant claimed as his
own. Testimony at trial established Defendant slept in this room at night, slept on
the bed in which the firearm was found, and used the room to store his personal
effects. The firearm and ammunition were wrapped in a bandana similar to
bandanas found folded carefully around photographs on the entertainment center.
Although the testimony of family members concerning Defendant’s use of the
room conflicts in minor detail with the parole officers’ testimony, the discrepancy
gives rise only to an issue of credibility and this is solely within the purview of the
jury. The jury clearly found persuasive the evidence linking Defendant to the
firearm. Based upon the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable jury could infer
Defendant had knowledge and control of the firearm. In sum, the government
introduced sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction.
The district court judgment is AFFIRMED.
8