FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 1, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15424 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 0 0 5 - CR- 4 - RH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C O R E Y T Y R E L L J O H N S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 1, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C o r e y J o h n s o n ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

s to le n f ir e a rm s , in2

vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 922(

j ) & 924( a ) ( 2) . O n appe a l , J ohns on a r gue s tha tthe go vernm entpres ent ed i nsuffi ci entevi dence attri al t o est abl i sh hi s a ctual pos s e s s i on orc ons truc t i ve pos s e s s i on of the s t ol e n f

i r e a rm s . T he r e f

or e , he c ont e nds , the r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

ora n obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e j ury t o f i nd h im g u ilty . W h e n , a s h e r e , ad e f

e n d a n t f a ils to m o v e f

o ra ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l a f

te ra ll o f th e e v id e n c e h a s b e e n p r e s e n te d , r e v e r s a l o f th e c o n v ic tio n is ap p r o p r ia te o n ly to prevent“ a m ani fe stm i sc arri age of j ust i ce . ” U ni ted Stat es v. B ender , 290 F . 3d 1279, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . U nde rthi s s t a nda r d, the e vi de nc e on a ke y e l e m e nt of the offens e m ustbe “ so t enuo us thata c on vi ct i on w ou l d b e s ho cki ng . ” I d. In r e vi e w i ng w i tne s s t e s t i m ony , “ [ t ] he j ury ge t s t o m a ke a nyc r e di bi l i ty c hoi c e s , a nd w e w i l l as sum e thatthey m ade them al l i n the w aythatsupp ort s the verdi ct . ” U ni te d State s v . T

hom ps on , 4 7 3 F .3 d 1 1 3 7 , 1 1 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 1 5 5 , 1 6 7 L . E d . 2 d 8 8 2 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . In th i s case, t o est ab l i sh p o ssessi o n o f a st o l en fi rearm , th e g o v ern m en tm u st prov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthatthe defendant : (1) posse ss ed; (2) ast ol en f i r e a rm ; ( 3) w hi c h w a s pa r tof i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ; ( 4) know i ng orha vi ng r e a s o n ab le c a u s e to b e lie v e th a t th e f ir e a rm w a s s to le n . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( j) . P o s s e s s io n c a n b e a c tu a l o rc o n s tru c tiv e . U ni ted Stat es v. G arci a-Jai m es , 484 F . 3d3

1311, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . T o e s t abl i s h c ons truc t i ve pos s e s s i on, “ the gove rnm e ntm us ts how tha tthe de f e nda nte xe r c i s e d ow ne r s hi p, dom i ni on, or control ov erthe fi re arm or the [property] conceal i ng the fi re arm . ” I d. ( a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . E a c h e le m e n t o f

th e o f f e n s e w a s s u f

f ic ie n tly e s tab lis h e d b y th e g o v e rn m e n t. T he j ury w a s f

r e e t o r e j e c tJ ohns on’ s t e s t i m ony tha the w a s i nt oxi c a t e d w he n he a d m itte d to p u r c h a s in g th e s to le n g u n s . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , J o h n s o n h a s f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t h is c o n v ic tio n w a s th e r e s u lt o f a m a n if e s t m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f

f i rm J ohns on’ s c onvi c t i on. AF F I RME D.