### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma rch 9, 2006 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble Anne C. Conway , United States District J udg e for the Middle District of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1000 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 20 30 5- CR-J EM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us UNISES CHAPOTIN, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 9, 200 6) Before BA RKE TT and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and CO NWAY , D istrict Judg e. *2

PE R CU RIA M: Appe llant Unis es Ch ap oti n w as a m ong a gr oup of m enw ho a gr ee d to r ob a dr ug c our ie r of

alarg e quanti ty

of c oc ai ne . T he ope ratio n w as planne d so it w oul d ap pe ar to the sup pli er

of c oc ai ne that an a ct

ua l r obbe ry , kno w n inthe il le ga l dr ug busi ne ss a s a“ ri p- of

f, ” ha d oc curr ed , w he n inf ac t the dr ug c our ie r w as in on the ro bbe ry . U nbe knownst

to Ch ap oti n and h is c onf ed er at es , one of

the part ic ipants w a s ac o n f

i d e n t i a l i n f

o rman t , t h e d i s g r

u n t l e ddr u g c o u r i e r

wa s a c tu a l l y a go ve rn m en t ag en t, an d t he dru gs an d t he su pp li er were fic ti ti ou s. Ch ap oti n be cam e inv olv ed in the ope ratio n a t the la st m inu te be ca use another intended p articipant wa s a no-show. On the day the robbery

wa s to occur, Ch ap oti n w as pic ke d up in a car dr ive n by a n un inv olv ed

party a nd o cc upi ed

by co -c onsp ir at or s O sc ar

T or re s and J or ge Mo re no. T he gr oup the n dr ove to a re sta ur an t park ing lot , w he re T or re s, Mo re no and C ha

pot in w er e pic ke d up in a ve hic le dr ive n by

the c onf ide nti al inf

orm an t, kno w n by

the f ir st n am e “ U lis es ” (n ot t o be c onf

use d w ithCh ap oti n’ s f

ir st n am e, “ U nis es ”) . T or re s w as se at ed

in the f ro nt p as se nge r se at , Mo re no w as sittin g inthe ba ck se at be hin d th e dr ive r, a nd Ch ap oti n w as sittin g inthe ba ck se at be hin d T or

re s. T he part ie s dr ove to a w ar eh ouse a re a to p ic k up avan w hic h w as to be use d to tr an spor t the dr ugs fo ll owi ng th e ro bb ery. Upo n a rri vi ng th ere, t he y were arres te d.3

Chapotin was tried alone. The governm ent presented evidence that Ch ap oti n w as f

ull y a w ar e that he w as to take part in a co ca ine r ip- of

f. T hr ougha com binatio n of testim onial and vi deo evidence, the governm ent established th at during th e car

ride fr om

the restaurant parking lo t to the war ehouse, T orres show ed the inf orm an t a handgun and C ha

pot in l eane d f

or w ar d to loo k a t i t. T he pr ose cu tio n a lso intro duc ed e vid en ce that C ha

pot in w as a w ar e fr om

state m en ts m ad e by his c o- co nspi rator s th at

the handgun T or

re s w as c ar

ry ing w as the one Chapotin would use during th e planned robbery . Torr es testified that he intended to g ive Ch ap oti n th e handgun on ce the m enw er e ins ide the van park ed a t the w ar eh ouse ; ho w ev er , he w as a rr es te d be fo re he ha d ac hanc e to transf er the fir earm to Ch ap ot in . Ch ap oti n w as c onvi ct ed

of c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s c oc ai ne w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te it ; c onsp ir ac y

to af fe ct int er state c om

m er ce by r obbe ry ; c onsp ir ac y

to carry a fi rear m du rin g a nd in rel at io n t o, o r to po ss es s a f ire arm in fur th eran ce o f, a cr im e of vio le nc e an d/o r a dr

ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m e; a tte m

pte d po sse ssi on o f co ca ine w ithint en t t o di str ibu te it ; c ar ry ing af ir earm dur ing a nd i n r el at ionto, or poss es sin g af

ir earm in furthe ranc e of

, ac ri m e of

vio le nc e an d/o r a dr

ug traff icking crim e; and possess ion of a firearm and/or am

m uniti on bya convicted fe lon .4

Inthi s a ppe al , Ch ap oti n arg ue s th at the tr ia l j udge e rr ed

w he n he r ef

use d to grant Chapotin’s m otion for j udgm ent of acquittal based on asserted insu fficiency of the e vid en ce . H e al so c la im s e rr or in the j udge ’ s r ef

usa l t o gr an t hi s r eque st f or a sp eci al ve rd ic t fo rm

an d wi th reg ardto th e se nt en ce i m po se d. W e have concluded that Chapotin ’ s argum ents are w ithou t m erit, save one: that the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort C ha pot in’ s c onvi ct ionof po ss es si on of a fir earm

by a con vi ct edfel on , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ).

“ Po sse ssi on, in the c ont ex t of § 92 2( g) (1 ), r equir es that the de fe ndant know ing ly

pos se ss the f

ir earm , . . . a nd m ay

be pr ove n e ith er

by sho w ing that the de fe ndant a ct

ua lly pos se sse d th e fi re ar

m , or by sho w ing that he c onstru ct ive ly poss essed the firearm .” U nit ed Sta tes v . G onza le

z, 71 F.3d 819, 834 (11 Cir. th 1996 ) (c itation o m itted). “ A def endant has const ructive possess ion if he exercises ownership, dom inion , or control over the firear m .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Gu nn , 369 F.3 d 1 22 9, 1 23 5 (1 1 Cir .), cert. denied , 543 U . S. 937 ( 2004 ). “ A de fe ndant a lso th ha s c onstru ct ive pos se ssi on i f he ha s th e pow er a nd i nte nti on t o e xe rc ise dom ini on or control.” Id

. “ The def

endant m ay

exerc ise that dom inion and control either directly or through o thers.” Id

. H ow ev er , “ a de fe ndant’ s ‘ m er e pr es en ce in the ar ea of [ anobj ec t] or

a w ar en es s of

it s lo catio n is not

suf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh poss ession.’ ” Uni te d S ta te s v. Ped ro , 999 F. 2d 4 97, 500 -0 1 ( 11 Ci r. 199 3) th5

(quot ing Uni te d S ta te s v. Mi er es -Bor ge s, 919 F. 2d 6 52, 657 ( 11 Ci r. 199 0) ); see th als o Uni te d S ta te s v. Ma sp er o, 496 F. 2d 1 354, 135 9 ( 5 Ci r. 197 4) ( quot ed in th Mieres-B orges ); Uni te d S ta te s v. Ri ch ar ds on , 504 F. 2d 3 57, 359 ( 5 Ci r. 197 4) th (“ Ce rt ai nly

the m er e pr es en ce of

c ontra band i n ac ar

doe s no t e sta

bli sh constructive po ssessio n by all of the car’ s occupants”). Ba se d one sta

bli she d E le ve nthCi rc uit

pr ec ed en t, Ch ap oti n’ s f

el on- inpo ss es si on co nv ic ti on m

us t b e rev ers ed . Se e Gun n, 369 F. 3d at 12 36 ( de fe ndant w ho m er el y

ha d kn ow le dge of

f ir earm s w as not

in co nstru ct ive pos se ssi on o f the m ); Uni te d S ta te s v. Le on ar d, 1 3 8 F . 3 d9 0 6 , 9 0 9 - 1 0 ( 1 1 C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( t o s a me th effe ct ). While there is certainly evidence that Chapotin had k nowledge that firearm s wer e in the vehicle driven by the confidential inform ant, and an inference co uld pr ope rl y be dr awn th at

he ha d th e int en tio n to la te r ex er ci se dom ini on o r control over one of thos e fire arm s, there wa s no eviden ce that Chapotin ever had the power to ex erci se do m in io n o r co nt ro l o ve r an y weap on pri orto hi s arres t. As ev ide nc ed

by use of the c onj unc tiv e, int en tio n and p ow er m ust c oe xis t. A t a ll tim es be fo re the a rr es t, T or re s r et ai ne d do m ini on, c ontro l and p ow er ove r the firearm he planned to gi ve Chapotin. T here is no indication from the rec ord that Chapotin h ad any

power to disp ossess Torres of the gun prior to the tim e T orres decided to transfer the w eapon to Chapot in. More over, C hapotin wa s a m ere6

pa sse nge r in the ve hic le , so the c as es hol din g dr ive rs a nd o w ne rs li ab le f or ve hic le co nte nts on a

c onstru ct ive pos se ssi on the or y do n ot a ppl y . A ddi tio na lly , Ch ap oti n w as not ale ad er of the planne d dr

ug r ip- of f, so h e cannot

be he ld c ri m ina lly

li ab le on tha t ba sis f

or his c onf ed er at es ’ f

ir earm pos se ssi on. U nde r the se c ir cu m stanc es , the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort C ha pot in’ s f el on- in- poss es sio n co nvi ct ion . A cc or din gly , the tr ia l j udge sho uld have gr an te d C ha

pot in’ s m oti on for j udgm ent of acquittal as to that particular char ge. Chapotin’s fe lon-in-po ssessio n convictio n is REV ER SE D. From a re view of the pre-sentence investig ation report, r eversal of this conviction has no effec t on Ch ap ot in ’s sen te nc e. Ch ap ot in ’s ot he r co nv ic ti on s ar e AFFIR MED.