P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50633 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. GA RYC HRI S T OP HER F ELAN , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 06- C R
- 282- 1 B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * G ary C h ri st oph er F el an ap pea l s h i s convic t i on f ol l ow i n g a ben ch t ri alf or a id in ga n da b e tt in ginth e p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a in e w i t h i n t e n t t o d is tr ib u te in vi o l at i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § 2 ; 2 1 U . S. C. § 841 ( a) ( 1) and (b) ( 1) ( B) . H e c hall e nge s t he s u ffic ie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is co n v ic tio n . The G o ve r nm e ntha d t o pr o vet hatFe l an kno w i ngly po s s e s s e d the c o c ai ne w i t h t h e i n t en tt o di st ribu t e. Un itedS ta tes v. Ma ta , 491 F . 3d237 , 242 ( 5th C i r. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50633

2 200 7) . Adefen da n t ’ s i n t en t t o di st ribu t e m ay be i n ferred f rom t h e possess i on of ala r g e q u a n tit yo f th e d r u g . R am o s - Car de nas , 524 F . 3dat 605 . P osses si on of n arcot i cs m ay be “act u alor constr u ct ive, m ay be j oi n tam on g severaldefen da n t s, a n dm a y b e p rov en bydirect or circum stan tia l e vid en ce.” Uni t e d S t at e s v. R am o s - Car de nas , 5 2 4 F .3 d6 0 0 , 6 0 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (c ita tio n o m it t e d). T h is court’ s def

i n i t i on of

constr u ct ive possessi on i n cl u des dom i n i on over th e prem i ses in w h ic h t h e co n tr a b a n dis fo u n d . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hi n oj osa , 349 F. 3d 200, 203 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) (c i t at i ons om i t t ed) . I n ca se s of j oi ntoc c upancy, t o pr ove con stru ctive po sse ssion , the re m u st be som e ev i d en c e s u p p ortingat l ea st a pl ausibl e i nfer enc e thatt he def endanthad know l edge of and ac c es s t o the il l egal ite m . I d. a t 2 0 4 . Fel an ar gue s t hatnot hi ng c o nne c t s hi m t o t he t o t e b agt hatc o nt ai ne d the b u l ko f t h e c o c a i n e , a n dh e r e l i e s o n e v i d e n c e t h a th i s c o d e fe n d a n t , N o r ma B i anca Pu ent a, oc c upi ed the apart m entw i t h hi m tosuppor th i s ar gum entt hat t he evi denc e w as i nsuf f i c i entt o c onvi c thi m . Const r uct ive pos se ss i on o f a dr ug, h o w e v e r , n e e dn o tb e e x c lu s iv e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Patt ers on , 431 F. 3d 832, 83 7 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 05 ) . Tr i al t e s t i m o ny e s t ab l i s he d t hat m e n’ s c l o t hi ng w as i n t he c lo s e tw h e r e th e c o c a in e w a s fo u n d a n dth a tp e r s o n a l d o c u m e n t s b e a r in gF e la n ’s nam e w e r e s t o r e d i n t he m as t e rb e dr o o m w he r e t he c l o s etw as l o c at e d. The bathroom contai n i n g t h e coc ai n e w as part of the m asterb edroom . Th u s, t h ere i s s om e evi den ce t o sup port a plaus ibl e i n ference t h at Fel an ha d k n ow l edg e of anda c c e s s t o t he c o c ai ne i n t he c l o s e to f t he m as t e rb e dr o o m a nd i n t he b a t h r o o m S ee Hi n oj osa , 3 49 F. 3d a t2 04 . Thi s e vi de nc e , v i e w e d i n t he l i ght m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e v e r d ic t, is s u ffic ie n t t o s h o w th a t F e la n co n s tr u c tiv e ly p o s s e s s e dth e co c a in e . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Se r na- Vi l lar r e al , 352 F. 3d 225, 234 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). AF F I RMED.