United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-1558

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Robert Lance Walker

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Northern

____________ 

Submitted: January 12, 2024

Filed: June 3, 2024

____________ 

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

Following a jury trial, Robert Lance Walker was convicted on five drug and 

firearm counts. The district court1 imposed a total sentence of 80 months of 

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Arkansas.

 
-2- 

imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. Walker appeals three of his 

convictions2 as well as his sentence. We affirm. 

I. 

Walker asserts that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support 

three of his convictions, which is an argument he also made to the district court.

3 We 

review such a challenge de novo, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the verdict and giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” United 

States v. Oliver, 90 F.4th 1222, 1224 (8th Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. 

Thompson, 11 F.4th 925, 929 (8th Cir. 2021)); United States v. Aungie, 4 F.4th 638, 

643 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). We will reverse a conviction only if “no 

reasonable jury could have found [the defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Oliver, 90 F.4th at 1225. 

A.

The conduct charged in Count 2, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), occurred on November 12, 2019. 

The drugs at issue—eight individually packaged bags of cocaine contained inside a 

larger bag—were found on the passenger floorboard after Walker’s car was pulled 

2

There were six counts in the Superseding Indictment. Walker does not appeal 

his convictions on two counts of cocaine possession (Counts 1 and 3). Count 5—

knowingly and intentionally possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking 

crime—was dismissed.

3

These three convictions relate to conduct that occurred during three separate 

events. We discuss each incident in the context of the related charge. Walker 

stipulated that at the time of each incident involving a firearm or ammunition, he had 

a prior conviction of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment and 

that he had knowingly been convicted. See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 

191–92 (1997); Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225, 227 (2019). 
-3- 

over by police. The jury heard testimony that Walker was driving the car and that 

one of the officers recognized it as “[Walker’s] car.” When the officer approached, 

he saw two plastic baggies of marijuana in plain view on the center console, and he 

asked Walker to exit the car. Walker complied, and as he was getting out, he grabbed 

one of the baggies of marijuana with his left hand. With his right hand, he put 

something down the back of his pants “like he was trying to conceal it.” Walker 

refused to show his hands when directed to do so, and an officer placed him in 

handcuffs. When Walker was subsequently searched, a plastic bag containing six 

individually wrapped cocaine rocks fell out of his pants. Another baggie of cocaine 

was found in Walker’s pocket, as well as $610 in cash. During his interaction with 

the officers, Walker told them he wanted to “work with” them, which, as the officers 

explained at trial, they interpreted to mean “he wanted to provide information about 

drug activity [in exchange] for leniency.” 

On appeal, Walker argues that the government failed to establish that he 

knowingly possessed the cocaine on the passenger-side floorboard. See United 

States v. Young, 68 F.4th 1095, 1098 (8th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he government has the 

burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that [a defendant] both knowingly 

possessed and intended to distribute the drugs.” (quoting United States v. Morales, 

813 F.3d 1058, 1065 (8th Cir. 2016))). The government presented no evidence that 

Walker was in actual possession of these drugs, but possession can be actual or 

constructive. United States v. Tenerelli, 614 F.3d 764, 769 (8th Cir. 2010). “[T]o 

prove constructive possession, the government must establish some nexus between 

a defendant and the contraband; mere physical proximity to the contraband is 

insufficient.” Young, 68 F.4th at 1098 (quoting United States v. Williams, 39 F.4th 

1034, 1045 (8th Cir. 2022)). “Constructive possession is defined as knowledge of 

presence of the contraband plus control over the contraband. Evidence showing a 

person has dominion over the premises in which the contraband is concealed 

establishes constructive possession.” Id. (quoting United States v. Wright, 739 F.3d 

1160, 1168 (8th Cir. 2014)). “Knowledge can be inferred from the surrounding 

circumstances. For instance, a defendant’s control and dominion over a vehicle can 

indicate knowledge of its contents.” Id. (quoting United States v. Wilson, 619 F.3d 
-4- 

787, 796 (8th Cir. 2010)). “Additional evidence of the defendant[’s] knowledge [can 

come] from their own statements and their demeanor following the arrest.” United 

States v. Serrano-Lopez, 366 F.3d 628, 635 (8th Cir. 2004).

Walker contends that for the jury to conclude that he constructively possessed 

the drugs in the passenger-side of the car it had to make inferences based solely on 

“conjecture or speculation.” But the jury heard evidence that the cocaine was found 

in the car Walker was driving, and that the car was described as “his car,” indicating, 

but not definitively establishing, his knowledge of and control over the drugs found 

inside. See Wright, 739 F.3d at 1168. The jury also heard about Walker’s conduct 

during the traffic stop, as well as his statements and demeanor when interacting with 

the officers. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and 

giving the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences, see Aungie, 4 F.4th 

at 643, a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker

had the requisite knowledge of and control over the cocaine found on his car’s 

passenger-side floorboard to support a guilty verdict based on constructive 

possession. 

B.

Next, Walker argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction 

on Count 4, possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). “To establish firearm possession, the government had to 

prove actual or constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States 

v. Parker, 871 F.3d 590, 604 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). And to do so, the 

government was required to “show a sufficient nexus between [Walker] and the 

firearm.” Id. at 603 (quoting United States v. Garrett, 648 F.3d 618, 622 (8th Cir. 

2011)). 

The conduct underlying this charge took place in the early morning of 

November 17, 2020, when police officers stopped the car Walker was driving for a 

traffic violation. After officers turned on their lights, Walker sped up, pulled into a 
-5- 

parking lot, and got out of the car and ran. Officers chased him down the street and 

through an alleyway, where he was taken into custody and handcuffed. Officers 

found cocaine, marijuana, and cash in Walker’s possession. Notably, as Walker

walked with the officers several blocks back to their parked squad car, he yelled 

“damn” just as the group passed by a yellow plastic bag on the ground. 

One of the officers who had been at the scene testified that he looked in the 

area where Walker had fled to see if he had discarded anything along the way—this, 

the officer testified, was his “typical[]” practice. The officer found a loaded handgun 

on Walker’s flight route; the gun was found “just a few yards in front of [Walker’s] 

car still on [the] driver’s side, so it would have been right where [Walker] ran.” And 

it was “next to” the yellow plastic bag on the ground. The jury also heard that the 

officer who picked up the gun thought two things were unusual about it. First, the 

gun was “still warm to the touch” when the officer picked it up even though it was 

“pretty cold, in the lower 40s” that night. Second, “the barrel was plugged with dirt, 

had a lot of dirt around. It looked like it had been spiked into the ground really hard.” 

He clarified that the barrel being “plugged with dirt” “indicated to [him] that it had 

been thrown down on the ground.” No one else was located in the area at the time.

Giving the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences and viewing 

the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable jury 

could find a sufficient nexus between Walker and the firearm found along the route 

he ran. And such a finding would support a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt that 

Walker knowingly possessed the firearm. 

C. 

Walker also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on Count 6, which 

charged him with possessing ammunition after being convicted of a felony, in 

violation of § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Two Hearts, 32 F.4th 659, 662 (8th 

Cir. 2022) (requiring government to show, inter alia, defendant knowingly 
-6- 

possessed a firearm); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (making firearm and ammunition 

interchangeable). 

At trial, the jury heard testimony that on October 23, 2019, police officers 

went to the apartment where Walker was known to live with his girlfriend with a 

warrant for Walker’s arrest. They knew Walker was likely to be home because his 

white Dodge Challenger with a red stripe down the middle was parked outside the 

apartment, where they had seen it in the past. They knocked at the apartment door, 

Walker opened it, and he was immediately taken into custody. Officers proceeded 

to search the apartment, and a detective found ammunition for a rifle on top of the 

kitchen cabinets.

A jury could reasonably conclude that Walker had dominion over the 

apartment where he lived with his girlfriend. Indeed, he answered the door to the 

apartment and was the only person home on the day of the arrest. See United States 

v. Davis, 449 F.3d 842, 846 (8th Cir. 2006) (“The government can prove 

constructive possession by showing that the defendant had ‘dominion over the 

premises where the firearm [was] located.’” (quoting United States v. Claybourne, 

415 F.3d 790, 795–96 (8th Cir. 2005))); United States v. White, 816 F.3d 976, 986 

(8th Cir. 2016) (“In the absence of evidence refuting the normal inference of 

dominion, showing that a firearm [or ammunition] was discovered at the defendant’s 

residence suffices to prove constructive possession.” (citation omitted)). But in a 

case like this one involving a shared residence, “mere dominion is insufficient to 

show that the defendant knowingly possessed a gun.” United States v. Ramos, 852 

F.3d 747, 754 (8th Cir. 2017). “Rather, the government must provide additional 

evidence of a link between the contraband and the defendant.” Id. (citing Wright, 

739 F.3d at 1168). 

The government presented additional evidence linking Walker to the 

ammunition in the residence. Officers found the title to Walker’s Dodge Challenger

alongside a box of ammunition in a kitchen drawer, in the same room as the 

ammunition on top of the cabinet. The jury also watched a video of Walker when he 
-7- 

made a telephone call while sitting in the back seat of a police car shortly after his 

arrest. During the call, Walker discussed, among other things, the ammunition the 

officers had just found in the apartment. Walker told the person on the other end of 

the call that he “told [officers], them bullets been up there.” After the call ended, 

Walker spoke with the officers, and asked them whether they were going to “charge 

[him] for the bullets.” A reasonable jury could conclude that these conversations 

reflected Walker’s knowledge of and control over the ammunition found in the 

apartment where he was living. Viewing the entire record in the light most favorable 

to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to have found

beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker constructively possessed ammunition as 

charged in Count 6. See Aungie, 4 F.4th at 643. 

II. 

Finally, Walker challenges his sentence. His advisory Guidelines range was 

41–51 months of incarceration, but the district court varied upward to impose a total 

sentence of 80 months. 

First, Walker argues procedural error, asserting that the court relied on a

misunderstanding of the Guidelines’ grouping rules and also failed to adequately 

explain its decision to vary upwards. See United States v. Black, 670 F.3d 877, 881 

(8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that failing to adequately explain a chosen sentence 

constitutes procedural error). “In explaining the sentence the district court need only 

set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ 

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking 

authority.” Id. at 882 (quoting United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600, 607 (8th 

Cir. 2009)). Because Walker did not object at sentencing, we review for plain error. 

Id. at 881 (citation omitted) (discussing plain error review). 

We find no plain error here. Walker argues the district court varied upward 

because it considered the firearm and drug charges to be “separate crimes,” despite

the fact that the grouping rules already took the separate nature of the offenses into 
-8- 

account in the calculation of his advisory sentence range. See generally United States 

Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) § 3D1.2 (2021). But the court described the offenses 

as “different crimes” in the context of determining whether to apply a four-level 

enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(a)(6)—which it ultimately declined to 

apply—not when providing the reasons for the upward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a). See USSG § 3D1.2(c), (d); § 3D1.4. Instead, the court explained that the 

“upward variant sentence [was] justified because [Walker’s] instant offense 

comprise[d] separate instances of drug trafficking, drug possession, and firearms 

over a significant period of time.” (emphasis added). The court also relied on 

Walker’s “serious criminal history,” and on its view that his prior probationary and 

“short term” sentences had not deterred him from further criminal conduct. The 

district court provided sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed and did not 

rely on a misunderstanding of the Guidelines’ grouping rules. 

Second, Walker argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable, because 

neither the circumstances of his case nor the § 3553(a) factors support his aboveguidelines sentence. We review a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a 

sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. McDaniels, 19 F.4th 1065, 1067 

(8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). “A district court abuses its discretion and imposes an 

unreasonable sentence when it fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, 

gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the 

appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” 

United States v. Green, 946 F.3d 433, 440 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. 

Kreitinger, 576 F.3d 500, 503 (8th Cir. 2009)).

In arriving at Walker’s sentence—which it found “sufficient but no greater 

than necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offenses, promote respect for the law, 

and address [Walker’s] needs”—the district court considered the § 3553 factors, 

including the nature of the instant offense, Walker’s criminal history, and that 

previous sentences had not served as adequate deterrence. It also considered the trial 

testimony, as well as “the presentence report in its entirety,” statements of counsel

and Walker, and the letters it received. There is no indication the district court failed 
-9- 

to consider a relevant factor or gave inappropriate weight to an irrelevant one, or that 

it committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the applicable factors. 

III. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________