Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30810/USCOURTS-ca5-03-30810-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Coleman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

F I L E D

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30810

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAYMOND COLEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-50107-ALL 

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raymond Coleman appeals his conviction, following a jury

trial, for possession of firearms by a felon. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). Coleman challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting his conviction. The Government was required to prove

that Coleman “(1) has been convicted of a felony; (2) possessed a

firearm in or affecting interstate commerce; and (3) knew that he

was in possession of the firearm.” United States v. Ferguson,

211 F.3d 878, 885 n.4 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and

 Case: 03-30810 Document: 0051450978 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2004
No. 03-30810

-2-

citations omitted). “[P]ossession may be actual or

constructive.” United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 348 (5th

Cir. 1993). The evidence submitted at trial was more than

sufficient to prove Coleman’s knowing possession of the firearms. 

See United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200, 1212 (5th Cir. 1996)

(“Constructive possession is defined as ‘ownership, dominion or

control over the [firearm] itself or dominion or control over the

premises in which the [firearm] is concealed.’”) (quoting

Mergerson, 4 F.3d at 349).

Coleman also argues that the district court’s refusal to

include his requested jury instruction on the “in or affecting”

commerce element was error. As Coleman acknowledges, this claim

is foreclosed by prior precedent. See United States v. De Leon,

170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 03-30810 Document: 0051450978 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2004