Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-31024/USCOURTS-ca5-15-31024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-31024

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

KEITH JOHNSON,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:08-CR-130-9

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Keith Johnson appeals the revocation of supervised release (“SR”)

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-31024 Document: 00513725448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 15-31024

2

following his guilty plea to possessing a firearm during and in relation to a 

drug-trafficking crime. He contends that the district court abused its discretion in revoking SR because the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed certain drugs and drug paraphernalia.

A district court may revoke a term of SR on a finding, by a preponderance 

of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition of SR. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 118-19 (5th Cir. 2005). A

revocation of SR is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995).

“[P]ossession may be actual or constructive.” United States v. Mergerson, 

4 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir. 1993). This court has “adopted a commonsense, factspecific approach” for deciding whether constructive possession has been established and has found it in joint-occupancy cases only where some evidence permits “a plausible inference that the defendant had knowledge of and access to 

the weapon or contraband.” Id. at 349.

Contrary to Johnson’s assertion, the evidence showed, and the district 

court articulated the facts that permitted, the plausible inference that Johnson 

constructively possessed the drugs and paraphernalia, which was the similar 

modus operandi of hiding the drugs in false-bottom containers. The court’s 

reasoning focused on the facts supporting the conclusion that Johnson had constructively possessed the drugs and paraphernalia; Aisha Howard’s credibility 

was not a factor in the decision. The evidence was sufficient for the court to 

find that Johnson had constructively possessed, and the court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that Johnson had violated the terms of SR. See McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219; Mergerson, 4 F.3d at 348.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-31024 Document: 00513725448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016