Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): control over an object.” United States v. Critton, 43 F.3d 1089, 1096 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1121, 115 S.Ct. 1987, 131 L.Ed.2d 873 (1995). See also United States v. Kincaide, 145 F.3d 771, 782 (6th Cir.1998). Constructive possession may be proved by circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866, 94 S.Ct. 54, 38 L.Ed.2d 85 (1973). The government does not offer any evidence that Curtis and Needum owned or possessed narcotics collectively or that Needum had ever entered Curtis’s apartment to obtain crack. There is also no evidence that Needum had any intent to exercise control over this particular bag of crack. Unlimited access to a particular area, however, is sometimes enough. Cf. Kincaide, 145 F.3d at 782 (<HOLDING>). The fact that Needum frequently sold crack 
 Holding statements: (A) holding when drugs are found on premises exclusive control provides significant proof of constructive possession (B) holding that constructive possession exists where one knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object either directly or through others (C) holding that proof of the discovery of illegal drugs in plain view in the presence or two or more joint occupants of the premises is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession (D) holding evidence establishing the intent of the defendants to distribute drugs also permits the inference they intended to exercise dominion over them to demonstrate constructive possession (E) holding that proof that the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located is sufficient to establish constructive possession citation omitted
Output (English): holding evidence establishing the intent of the defendants to distribute drugs also permits the inference they intended to exercise dominion over them to demonstrate constructive possession