T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10 TH C IR . R. 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of t hi s appea l . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34( A )(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay16,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 6190 v. ( W . D . O kl ahoma) TOM M Y R UI Z,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. 04 - CR - 20 8- F)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ** T om m yR ui z w as convi ct ed af t era j uryt r i al of one c ountof pos s es s i ng a firearm af

ter ha v ing b ee n co n v ict ed o f a crim e p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r a term ex ce ed ing o n e y ea r, a v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). T h e d istri ct co u rt-2-

s ent ence d hi m t o 92 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed bythr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. In th is ap p ea l, M r. R u iz arg u es th at th e e v iden ce w as in su ffici en t t o su p p o rt t he § 922( g) ( 1) char ge. W e di s agr ee a nd ther efor e affi r m hi s convi ct i on.

I . BA CKGROUND On Au g u s t2 , 2 0 0 4 , S e r g e a n tJ i m L i l l y , a n i n v e s t i g a t o rwi th t h e Ok l a h o ma C ount ySher i ff’ s offi ce, at t empt ed t o s erve an a rr es tw arr anton a fugi t i ve named T i ffan yF orest er. S ergeant Lil l yhad recei ved i nfo rm at i on i nd i cat i ng t hat M s. F o re s te r m ig h t b e fo u n d a t a h o u s e in O k la h o m a C ity w h e re M r. R u iz w a s liv in g . Ser geantL i l l yand s ever al ot heroffi cer s arr i ved att he hous e ar ound 7: 30 or8: 00 p. m . B onni e H ow ar d, w ho w as M r . R ui z’ s form ers i s t er - i n- l aw , ans w er ed the d o o r. S h e to ld S e rg e a n t L ill yth a t n o o n e e lse w a s th e re , an d sh e g a v e h im perm i s s i on t o l ook fort he fugi t i ve. W hi l e conduc t i ng a pr ot ect i ve s w eep, R es erve D eputyJ as on R uegge fo u n d a loc k ed roo m in the n o rth ea st pa rto f th e h o u se. D ep u tyR u eg g e h ea rd v o i c e s i n s i d e t h e r o o m, b u th e c o u l d n o td e t e r mi n e wh e th e rt h e yc a me f r o m a t el evi s i on s etorfr om ot herpeopl e. A ccor di ng t o Ser geantL i l l y , M s . H ow ar d t ol d hi m t hats he di d nothave a k e yto th e lo c k e d ro o m a n d d id n o t h a v e a c c e ss to it. S h e a d d e d th a t M r. R u iz wa s t h e o n l yp e r s o n wi t h a c c e s s t o t h e r o o m.-3-

W hi l e the off

i cer s w er e cont i nui ng the pr ot ect i ve s w eep, M r . R ui z arr i ved a t th e h o u se . H e g a v e S e rg e a n t L ill ya k e yto th e lo c k e d ro o m , an d S e rg e a n t L ill y o p en ed the d o o r. Insid e a ca b inet ab o v e a clos et, S erg ea n t L il lyfo u n d the fir ea rm t hati s t he s ubj ectof thi s pr os ecut i on— a G l ock pi s t ol w i th . 40 cal i beramm uni t i on lo a d e d in th e m a g a z in e . A c c o rd in g to S e rg e a n t L ill y , M r. R u iz to ld h im th a t a f rie n d h a d lef

t th e p isto l th e re . S e rg e a n t L ill yre sp o n d e d th a t h e d id n o t in ten d to arr es tM r . R ui z, buthe di d s ei ze the pi s t ol . O ffi cer s obt ai ned a l at entfi ngerpr i nt f ro m th e p is to l, b u t la te r d is c o v e re d th a t it d id n o t b e lo n g to M r. R u iz . Sever al otherw i t nes s es t es t i fi ed attr i al aboutM r . R ui z’ s connec t i on t o t he pi s t ol . J eff

R eed, a det ect i ve w i th the O kl ahoma C i tyPol i ce D epart m ent , s t at ed t hati n t he cour s e of i nves t i gat i ng a dr i ve- bys hoot i ng on the fol l ow i ng day ( A ugus t3, 2004) , he i nt ervi ew ed M r . R ui z. M r . R ui z t ol d hi m thatoffi cer s had s ei zed a G l ock . 40 cal i berpi s t ol and thathe had obt ai ned i tfr om an ex- gun deal er i n N or m an, O kl ahoma. D et ect i ve R eed i nt ervi ew ed M r . R ui z aga i n on Sept ember 9, 2004. T hi s t i m e, M r . R ui z s t at ed thata fr i end had obt ai ned the pi s t ol and that t h e b e d r o o m wh e r e i th a d b e e n fo u n d b e l o n g e d t o h i s fa th e r , n o th i m. K ar en H es s , a s peci al agentw i th the B ur eau of A l cohol , T obacc o, and Fi r earm s t es t i fi ed thats he i nt ervi ew ed M r . R ui z on O ct ober24, 2004, aft erhe had b e e n a rre ste d fo r th is fire a rm o ffe n se . S h e sta ted th a t M r. R u iz to ld h e r th a t it w as M s. H ow ard w ho had ob t ai ned the p i st ol butthat he di d n ot know that M s. H ow ar d had i t . H e adde d t hatt he bedr oom w her e the pi s t ol had bee n found-4-

bel onged t o hi s father . H ow ever , M r . R ui z s ai d, hi s fatherw oul d gi ve hi m the keyw hen hi s fatherw entt o w or k. A tt r i al , M s . H ow ar d t es t i fi ed i n M r . R ui z’ s defe ns e. She t ol d the j ur ythat t he r oom i n w hi ch the pi s t ol w as found bel onged t o M r . R ui z’ s fatherand that s he, M r . R ui z, and M r . R ui z’ s fatheral l had key s t o i t . She expl ai ned thats he had o b tain e d th e p isto l f

ro m A n d re W ill iam s, th e fa th e r o f h e r b a b y . S h e h a d p u t itin th e c a b in e t b u t d id n o t tell M r. R u iz th a t sh e h a d d o n e so . S h e o n lyto ld M r. R u iz a b o u t th e p is to l a s th e o ffic e rs w e re s e a rc h in g th e ro o m . I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r. R u iz n o w a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e is in su fficie n t to su p p o rt h is convi ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . H e mai nt ai ns t hatt he evi dence r ai s es o n lya su sp icio n o f

g u ilt . W e enga ge i n de novo r evi ew of the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence s uppor t i ng a c o n v ic tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . B o w e n , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e cons i derw hether , “t aki ng t he evi dence –both di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al –t ogetherw i t h r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n ther efr om –i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd [M r . R ui z] gui l t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed St at es v. A l l en, 235 F. 3d 482, 492 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). “W e d o n o t qu esti o n the ju ry ’s cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons ori t s concl us i ons aboutt he w ei ghtof the evi dence . ”-5-

I d. “The evi dence nece s s aryt o s uppor ta ver di ctneed notconcl us i vel yexcl ude everyot herr eas onabl e hypot hes i s and nee d notnegat e al l pos s i bi l i t i es exce pt gui l t . I ns t ead, t he evi dence onl yhas t o r eas onabl ys uppor tthe j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng of gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Pul i do- J acobo, 377 F. 3d 1124, 1 1 2 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). T o pr ove a vi ol at i on of § 922( g) ( 1) , the governm entm us tes t abl i s h the fol l ow i ng el ement s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt : ( 1) thatthe defendantw as p re v io u slyc o n v icte d o f a fe lo n y ; (2 ) th a t th e d e fe n d a n t th e re a f ter k n o w in g ly pos s es s ed a f

i r earm oramm uni t i on; and ( 3) thatthe pos s es s i on w as i n oraffect i ng interst ate c o m m erc e. U n it ed S tat es. v. C o lon n a, 36 0 F . 3 d 1 1 6 9 , 1 1 7 8 (10 th C ir . 2004) . H er e, M r . R ui z’ s has di s put ed onl ythe s econd e l ement

— know i ng p o s s e s s io n . “Pos s es s i on” under§ 922( g) ( 1) m aybe ac tual orcons truct i ve. See U ni t ed St at es v. M i l l s , 29 F. 3d 545, 549 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . “[C]ons truct i ve pos s es s i on exi s t s w her e the defendanthas t he pow ert o exer ci s e contr ol ordom i ni on overt he i t em . ” U nit ed S t at es v. L op ez, 30 7 F . 3d 12 07 , 12 12 (10t h C i r. 20 04 ). In m ost cas es , “[d] om i ni on, contr ol , and know l edge . . . m aybe i nferr ed w hen a de fenda nt has excl us i ve pos s es s i on of the pr emi s es ” w her e the obj ecti s found. M i l l s , 29 F. 3d at549.-6-

In c a se s o f

jo in t o c c u p a n c y , the g o v e rn m e n t “m u st p re se n t ev id e n c e to s how s om e conne ct i on ornexus betw een the defendantand the fi r earm orother contr aband. ” I d. “W hi l e ca ut i on m us tbe t aken thatthe convi ct i on notbe obt ai ned bypi l i ng i nfer ence on i nfer ence , an i nfer ence of cons truct i ve pos s es s i on is re a s o n a b le if

th e c o n c lu s io n flo w s f ro m lo g ic a l a n d p ro b a b ilis tic re a s o n in g .” U ni t ed St at es v. L azc ano- V i l l al obos , 175 F. 3d 838, 843 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T o s us t ai n a convi ct i on forcons truct i ve pos s es s i on, t he governm entm us tpr es ent“evi dence s upport i ng atl eas ta pl aus i bl e i nfer ence t hatt he defendanthad know l edge of and ac ces s t o the w eapon. ” U ni t ed St at es v. H i en V an Ti eu, 279 F. 3d 917, 922 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o M i l l s , 29 F. 3d at549- 50. A p p ly in g th e se sta n d a rd s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e is s u fficie n t to perm i tt he j ur yt o i nfert hatM r . R ui z had know l edge a nd acc es s t o the G l ock p ist o l and there fo re c o n stru cti v elyp o sses sed it . T h e juryh ea rd e v iden ce that M r. R u iz ha d ad m itted th at he h ad o b tai n ed the p ist o l from a N o rm an g u n d ea ler. A lth o u g h the ju ryh ea rd c o n tr arystat em en ts–b o th f rom M s. H o w ard an d fro m M r. R u iz h im se lf

– w e m a yn o t se c o n d -g u e ss its d e c isio n a b o u t th e w e ig h t o f th is e v id e n c e . M o re o v e r, ev e n if it d id n o t b e liev e th a t M r. R u iz o w n e d th e p isto l, i t coul d s t i l l r eas onabl yconcl ude, fr om t es t i m onyabouthi s havi ng a keyt o the r oom and know i ng w her e the pi s t ol w as l ocat ed, thathe had “ know l edge of and a c c e s s to th e w e a p o n .” H ie n V a n T ie u , 2 7 9 F .3 d a t 9 2 2 .-7- I I I . CONCL US I ON A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM M r . R ui z’ s convi ct i on.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge