FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 14, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 92 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-0 00 55 -CEH-DNF-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us RODERICK L. COCHRAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 4, 2 01 2) Befo re WILSON, ANDERSON andHIGGINBOTHAM, Cir cu itJu dg es . *

Honora ble Patrick E. Hig g inbotham, United States Circuit J udg e for the Fif th Circuit, * sitti ngby designation.W ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Ro de ric k C oc hr anwas c on vi ct edforpo ss es si ng with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te fiv e gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se an d p os se ss in g wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 ). The co cai ne an d c oc ai ne ba se at is su e were d is co ve redwhen off ic ers sea rch eda res id en ce; Co ch ranwas s tand in g in th e driv eway of

th atres id en ce atth e ti m e o f th e se arch . The g ov ern m en t’s th eo ry of t he cas e was th atalt ho ug h C oc hr anlac ke d a ctua l p os se ss io n o f th e co nt rab an d, h e co ns tru ct iv el y po ss es se d t he dru gs . This cir cu it ’s pat te rnjury in st ru ct io n re ga rd in g c on stru ct iv e p os se ss io n s ta te s: “ ‘Con st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n’ of a th in g o ccu rs if ape rs on do es n’t h av e actua l p os se ss io n o f it , bu t h as bo th th e po wer an d t he in te nt io n t o t ak e co nt ro l o ve r itlat er.” 1 1t h C ir. Pa tt ernJu ry In st ru ct io ns (Cri m in al ), Sp eci al Ins tru ct io n 6 (20 10 ). The g ov ern m en t re qu es te d th atanad di ti on al sen te nc e b e ad de d: “ Co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f a thi ng als o oc cu rs if ape rs on ex erci se s o wne rs hi p, d om in io n, o r co nt ro l o ve r a thi ng or pr em is es co nc eal in g the th in g.” The d is tri ctco urt p erm it te d t he in st ru ct io n o ve r Co ch ran ’s ob

jecti on . Co ch ranarg ue s o n app eal th atth is jury in st ru ct io n was m is le ad in g a s a m at te r of law. He al so arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y adm it ti ng ev id en ce o f hi s p rio r drug -rel at edoff en se , andhe ch al le ng es th e 2su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce t o s us ta in hi s co nv ic ti on s. I. On Dec em

be r 18 , 20 09 , aut ho rit ie s ex ecu te d asea rchwarran t o f th e res id en ce at11 0 Lu ci ll e Ave nu e whi le Co ch ranwas s ta nd in g i n t he dri ve way of th atho m e. Co ch ranwas d et ai ne d wh il e o ffi cers co nduc te d t he sea rch . Ins id e th e ho us e, au th or it ie s fo un d a m m un it io n i n adre ss er drawerin on e o f th e b edro om s; a di gi ta l s cal e an d asm al l qua nt ity of c oc ai ne in a dr es se r of an ot he r be dr oo m ; s m al l ba gs co nt ai ni ng co cai ne an d c rack , two forks , anda m eas ur in g c up be ari ng dru g res idue in th e k it ch en ; an d m or e b ag s o f dr ug s an d p arap he rn al iain a co nv ert ed li vi ng sp ace t ha t h adpre vi ou sl y be ena ga rag e. Co ch ranwas i nd ic te d andch arg edwith p os se ss in g am m un it io n a fte r ha vi ng be enco nv ic te d o f a fel on y , 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( e), an d 2 (co un t o ne ); po ss es si ng with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne ba se , 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(B) (ii i) a nd18 U.S.C. § 2 (co un t two) ; an d p os se ss in g wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne , 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(C) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 (c ou nt th ree) . Coc hr anpl edno t g ui lty , andth e cas e p ro ceed edto tri al
. Dur in g t ria l, the go ve rn m en t ca ll edOffic er Ca nd ic e Pet ta ci o a s a wi tn es s, an d s he tes ti fie d t ha t s he ha d b een us in g b in oc ul ars to co nduc t s urve il la nc e o f th e 11 0 Lu ci ll e Ave nu e res id en ce p rio r to th e se arch on Decem be r 18 , 20 09 . She 3st at edth atsh e was po si ti on edab ou t a b lo ckan d aha lf a way fro m th e h om e an d ha d s eena bl ackm al e, la te r id en ti fie d a s C oc hr an , exi t an d re -en te r th e res id en ce se ve ral ti m es . On cro ss -ex am in at io n, Co ch ranpre se nt edPet ta ci o wi th a nu m be r of ph ot og rap hs of t he areatak enin 20 10 an d p oi nt edou t h ow t rees an d fo li ag e bl oc ke d t he vi ew of

th e res id en ce fr om

he r al le ge d v an ta ge po in t. Pet ta ci o re pl ie d th atth e p ho to gr ap hs di d n otaccu rat el y de pi ctwhatsh e rec al le d o f th e sc en e. Sh e al so st at edth atsh e h adreturne d t o the ne ig hb orho odin Aug us t o r Sep te m be r of 20 10 an d t ha t n ew ob st ru ct io ns , su ch as c ars an d o ve rg ro wn v eg et at io n, h adm ad e itim po ss ib le to see 11 0 Lu ci ll e Ave nu e fro m he r pr io r po in t o f ob se rv at io n. Sh e th enrei te rat edhe r te st im on y th atin 20 09 sh e h adbe enab le to ob se rv e Co ch ran le av e an d re -en te r th e h ou se with t he aidof h er b in oc ul ars . Fo ll owi ng Pet ta ci o’s t es ti m on y , m em be rs of t he SWAT team

who rai de d t he ho m e te st ifi edth atth ey

ha d s een no on e in th e h ou se ot he r th ana y ou ng ch il d. The go ve rn m en t the n c al le d Off ic er Kel ly W it t as a wit ne ss . He reco un te d tha t h e ha d a ss is te d wi th th e se arch an d h addi sc ov eredin th e k it ch entwo forks , a m eas ur in g c up be ari ng dru g re si du e, an d acig ar b ox co nt ai ni ng a nu m be r of sm al l pl as ti c b ag s fi ll edwith d ru gs . W it t al so fou nddru gs an d p arap he rn al iain on e o f th e b edro om s o f th e h om e an d i n t he co nv ert edga rag e. W it t fu rth er s ta te d t ha t du rin g t he sea rch he en co un te reda pi ece o f m ai l s it ti ng on th e k it ch entab le . The 4en ve lo pe was a dd res se d t o b ot h R od eri ckCo ch ranan d R od ne sh a Co ch ranat 1 10

Luc il le Aven ue an d l is te d “ Life Sk il ls ” as th e se nd er. W it t t es ti fie d t ha t h e se arch edCo ch ranan d fo un d i n C oc hr an ’s po ck eta ke y th atun lo ck edth e d oo r of th e res id en ce. He al so ob ta in edCo ch ran ’s dri ve r’s li cen se , whi ch refl ect s t ha t Co ch ran ’s add res s i s 1 16 , rathe r th an11 0, Lu ci ll e Ave nu e. On cr os s- ex am in at io n, W it t t es ti fie d t ha t n o c on traba ndha d b een fou ndin th e li vi ng roo m an d t ha t the drug s i n t he ki tc he n wer e fo un d o n t op of aki tc he n c ab in et , nea r th e cei li ng , and in a ci ga r bo x und er the m ic ro wav e st an d. He al so co nf irmed th atCo ch ran ’s fin ge rp rin ts were n otde te ct edonan y of t he it em s s ei zedin th e se arch
. The go ve rn m en t al so cal le d Off ic er Do m in ic Zam

m itas awitne ss . Zam

m it de sc rib edth e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng Co ch ran ’s arres t i n 2 00 4, wh ic h i nv ol ve d Co ch ranpo ss es si ng pa ck et s o f po wde r co cai ne an d m ari juan a. The d is tri ctco urt

1 in st ru ct edth e jury tha t Zam m it ’s evi de nc e was on ly relev an t t o d et erm in e whe th er Co ch ranha d “ th e in te ntne ces sa ry forth e cri m e ch arg ed , kn owl ed ge , m ot iv e, an d ab se nc e o f m is ta ke or a cci de nt .” Afte r th e g ov ern m en t re st ed , Coc hr anm ov edfor a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 2 9. Th e di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n.
Prior to trial, the g overnme nt filed a motion to admit evidence of Cochra n’s 2004 1 offe nse. The district c ourt grante d that motion over Cochra n’s objection. 5The d efen se th encal le d C oc hr an ’s dau gh te r, Ro dn es haCo ch ran . She

te st ifi edth atsh e h adli ve d a t 1 10 Luci ll e Ave nu e wit h h er u nc le fortwo or t hr ee m on th s b utha d m ov edou t a f ew week s b efo re the po li ce s earc h. Du rin g the ti m e sh e li ve d i n the ho m e, sh e at te nd edaneduc at io na l i ns ti tu ti on cal le d Li fe Sk il ls
. Ro dn es hast at edth atCo ch ranli ve d wi th hi s m ot he r at11 6 Lu ci ll e Ave nu e b utha d vi si te d 1 10 Luci ll e Ave nu e m an y ti m es . She als o t es ti fie d t ha t s he ha d s een dru gs in th e h om e o n m an y

oc cas io ns , th atth e h ou se was h eav il y tra ffi ck edin th e ev en in gs , andth atsh e h adwitne ss edhe r un cl e u si ng dru gs . The p rin ci pa l o f Life Sk il ls th entes ti fie d t ha t l et te rs sen t t o s tu de nt s wer e ad dr es se d u si ng a m ai li ng syste m th atau to m at ic al ly add edth e stud en t’s l is te d c on ta ctpe rs on as areci pi en t bu t o th erwi se ut il iz edon ly the stud en t’s s tre etad dr es s. The de fen se als o c al le d a n i nv es ti ga to r fo r th e Fed eral Publ ic Defen de r’s Offi ce wh o h adph ot og rap he d t he areaaro un d 1 10 Luci ll e Ave nu e in Aug us t 20 10 . The i nv es ti ga to r te st ifi edth atitwas i m po ss ib le to vi ew th e res id en ce fr om Offi cer P et ta ci o’s al le ge d s ta ke -o utpo si ti on . The go ve rn m en t ca ll edreb ut ta l wi tn es s Dem ei traBat tl e, Ro dn es ha ’s juv en il e p ro ba ti on off

ic er. Bat tl e te st ifi edth atRo dn es haha d re po rte d t ha t s he an d he r fat he r bo th res id edat 1 10 Luci ll e Ave nu e. Bat tl e al so st at edth atRo dn es ha ha d s ai d t ha t s he want edto m ov e o utof t he ho us e at11 0 Lu ci ll e Ave nu e b ecau se 6“ he r fat he r was ha vi ng co m pa ny tha t s he di dn ’t app ro ve of.” Ano th er o ffi cer te st ifi edth athe ha d b een sen t t o t he res id en ce t o c he ckon Ro dn es haan d h ad witne ss edCo ch ranin th e h om e. Fo ll owi ng th e cl os e o f ev id en ce, the co urt d is cu ss edth e p ro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io ns with t he pa rti es . The g ov ern m en t re qu es te d t ha t the jury be gi ve n a po ss es si on in st ru ct io n t ha t co ns is te d o f th e st an da rdpa tt ernin st ru ct io n l an gu ag e pl us anad di ti on al sen te nc e m or e ta il or edto th e ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e: The law re co gn iz es sev eral ki nd s o f po ss es si on. . . . Actu al po ss es si on of ath in g o ccu rs if ape rs on kn owi ng ly has di rectph y si cal co nt ro l o f it . Con st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f a thi ng oc cu rs if ape rs on do es n’t h av e actua l p os se ss io n o f itbu t h as bo th th e p owe r an d the in te nt io n t o t ak e co nt ro l o ve r itlat er. Co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f a th in g a ls o o ccu rs if ape rs on ex erci se s o wne rs hi p, d om in io n, o r co nt ro l o ve r a thi ng or p rem is es co nc eal in g t he th in g . Co ch ranarg ue d i n re sp on se th atth e ad di ti on of t he fin al sen te nc e to th e p at te rn in st ru ct io n o m it te d the kn owl ed ge ele m en t an d s tri pp edth e in st ru ct io n o f th e es se nt ia l “po wer an d i nt en ti on to tak e co nt ro l” lan gu ag e. He als o c on te nd edth at al th ou gh ev id en ce o f do m in io n o r co nt ro l o ve r th e p rem is es wher e co nt rab an d i s lo cat edm ay

serve as c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce, i t d oe s n otau to m at ic al ly establ is h
co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt p erm it te d t he in st ru ct io n o ve r Co ch ran ’s ob

jecti on . The co urt ad dr es se d t he jury, be gi nn in g b y advi si ng itto fol lo w all of the 7in st ru ct io ns as awho le . It rea d t o t he jury th e d efi ni ti onof “ kn owi ng ly” andlat er

in th e in st ru ct io ns st at edth atth e dru g p os se ss io n c rimes requi redth e d efen da ntto ha ve “ kn owi ng ly pos se ss ed ” th e dru gs at i ss ue . The co urt the n re ci te d ano th er pa rag rap h o f in st ru ct io ns be fo re re ach in g i ts in st ru ct io n re ga rd in g t y pe s o f po ss es si on , inwhi ch itde li ve redth e o bjec te d- to lan gu ag e reque st edby the go ve rn m en t. Afte r th e jury reti redforde li be rat io ns , itsubm it te d aqu es ti on to th e co urt:

“ If y ouhave free acce ss to a ho m e th endo y ouha ve co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f th e co nt en ts ? ” The d is tri ctco urt re pl ie d t ha t i t co ul d n otan swe r th e que st io n a nd in st ru ct edth e jury to c on su ltth e jury ins tru ct io ns . Duri ng de li be rat io ns th e n ex t da y , th e jury agai n s en t a n ot e to th e d is tri ctco urt, thi s t im e as ki ng : “ Reg ard in g Co un t 1 [th e amm

un it io n c ha rg es ] do es th e d efi ni ti on of c on st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n ap pl y to th e p hr as e ‘kn owi ng ly pos se ss ? ’” A ga inth e d is tri ctco urt re ferr edth e jury to the jury in st ru ct io ns , refu si ng to an swe r th e que st io n. Ult im at el y , th e jury retu rn eda ve rd ic t fi nd in g C oc hr anno t g ui lt y of c ou nt on e, th e am

m un it io n c ha rg es , bu t g ui lt y reg ard in g c ou nttwo an d c ou ntth ree, t he drug off en se s. Co ch ranwas s en te nc edto 13 2 m on th s i n p ris on . This ap pe al fo ll owe d. II. 8Co ch ranfir starg ue s, as he di d b el ow, tha t the jury in st ru ct io n re ga rd in g

co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n was m is le ad in g a s a m atte r of law. We revi ew jury in st ru ct io ns th atwere p ro pe rly chal le ng edbe lo w de no vo to de te rm in e “ whe th er th e in st ru ct io ns m is st at edth e la w or m is le d t he jury to th e p reju di ce o f th e ob jecti ng pa rty.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Fel ts , 57 9 F .3d13 41 , 13 42 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m). W e an al y ze the ob jecte d- to po rti onof t he in st ru ct io ns “ in li gh t o f th e en ti re ch arg e” an d we k eep in m in d “ th atis ol at edst at em en ts whi ch ap pe ar pr ejud ic ia l wh entak enou t o f co nt ex t m ay be in no cu ou s wh envi ewedin li gh t o f th e en ti re tria l.” Uni te d Sta tes v. McCoy , 53 9 F .2d10 50 , 10 63 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6)
. 2 W e wil l re ve rs e o nl y

if we h av e a “ subs ta nt ia l an d i ne rad ic ab le do ub t as to whe th er the jury was pro pe rly gu id edinit s d el ib erat io ns .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ful fo rd , 26 7 F .3d12 41 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. W e ag ree wi th Co ch ranth atth ere wer e a num be r of pro bl em s wi th th e g iv en co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n i ns tru ct io n. Th e st an da rdpa tt ernjury in st ru ct io n i n t hi s ci rcu itreg ard in g c on st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n i s: “ ‘Con st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n’ of ath in g oc cu rs if ape rs on do es n’t h av e actua l p os se ss io n o f it , bu t h as bo th th e p ow er an d th e in te nt io n t o t ak

e co ntro l o ver

it la te r .” 11 th Cir . Pat te rnJu ry Ins tru ct io ns
The Eleve nth Circuit has adopted a s binding pre cede nt all Fifth Circuit ca ses hande d 2 down on or be fore September 30, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba

nc). 9(Cri m in al ), Sp eci al Ins tru ct io n 6 (20 10 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . The g ov ern m en t’s
su gg es te d a dd it io n t ha t, “ [c]on st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f a thi ng als o o ccu rs if a pe rs on ex erci se s o wne rs hi p, d om in io n, o r co nt ro l o ve r a thi ng or p rem is es co nc eal in g t he th in g,” eli m in at es th e “po wer an d t he in te nt io n t o t ak e co nt ro l o ve r itlat er” l an gu ag e. Thatom is si on is esp eci al ly troubl in g g iv enth atth e d efi ni ti on of “ co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n” im m ed ia te ly foll ows th e in st ru ct io n t ha t “ [a]ctu al po ss es si on of ath in g o ccu rs if ape rs on kn ow in gl yha s d ire ctph y si cal co nt ro l o f it .” 11 th Cir . Pat te rnJu ry Ins tru ct io ns (Cri m in al ), Sp eci al Ins tru ct io n 6 (20 10 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . Suc h ajux tapo si ti onco ul d c reat e anin fere nc e th atco ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on , as d efi ne d b y th e g ov ern m en t’s i ns tru ct io n, l ack s an in te nt io na li ty requi rem en t. Fu rth erm or e, th e supp le m en te d c on st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n i ns tru ct io n s ta te s th atco nt ro l o ve r th e pr emis es —ra th er tha n c on tro l o ve r th e co nt rab an d i ts el f—i s su ffi ci en t t o c on vi ct . Alth ou gh we ha ve fou ndco nt ro l o f pr em is es to be en ou gh to up ho lda co nv ic ti on on a su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce ch al le ng e, se e, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Poo le , 87 8 F .2d13 89 , 13 92 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (p er cu ria m), th atdo es no t
m ean th atth e jury sho ul d b e in st ru ct edth atco nt ro l o f pr em is es canserve as aso le ba si s o f co nv ic ti on . W e h av e in di cat edth atth e es se nc e o f co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n is th e p owe r to co nt ro l the co nt rab an d i ts el f an d t ha t co ntro l o f th e p rem is es 10si m

pl y pe rm it s an in

fe re nc eof t ha t p owe r. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi er es -Bor ge s , 91 9 F .2d65 2, 6 57 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (“ [C]on st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n . . . m ay be sh own ci rc ums ta nt ia ll

yth ro ug h e vi de nc e o f own ers hi p, d om in io n, o r co nt ro l o ve r th e pr em is es on whi ch th e subs ta nc e is lo cat ed .” (em ph as is ad de d) ). It i s t he jury’ s ch oi ce an d re sp on si bi li ty to draw i nf eren ces , se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Hen de rs on , 69 3 F.2 d 1 02 8, 1 03 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) , andwe di sapp ro ve of ajury in st ru ct io n t ha t in va de s t he jury’ s p ro vi nc e b y im pl ic it ly m an da ti ng anin fere nc e. Altho ug h we a gr ee tha t d is tri ctco urts sh ou ldut il iz e a co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on in st ru ct io n m or e p reci se th anth e o ne gi ve n i n t hi s ca se , we can no t s ay th atwe are l eftwith a“ subs ta nt ia l an d i ne rad ic ab le do ub t” as t o wh ethe r th e jury
was pro pe rly gu id edhe re. Itis anest ab li sh edpri nc ip le th atwe ev al ua te a jury in st ru ct io n i n t he co nt ex t o f th e o ve ral l ch arg e. See Uni te d Sta tes v. Pa rk , 42 1 U.S. 65 8, 6 74 , 95 S. Ct. 1 90 3, 1 91 2 (1 97 5) . Thu s, wh enm ak in g o urrev ie w we em pl oy a ho li st ic ap pr oa ch , rathe r th an“ is ol at in g a ndex am in in g t he de fic ie nc ie s of in di vi du al in stru ct io ns .” Lo melo v. Uni te d Sta tes , 89 1 F .2d15 12 , 15 18 (11 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . W e fi ndth atalt ho ug h t he word in g o f th e fin al sen te nc e o f th e co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n i ns tru ct io n wo ul d h av e b een m or e cl ear i f itin cl ud edlan gu ag e ab ou t kno wled ge or i nt en t, tha t fl aw is m it ig at edby th e to ta li ty of th e in st ru ct io ns . Becau se he re the jury in st ru ct io ns st at edin a 11di ffer en t s ect io n t ha t p os se ss io n o f th e co nt rab an d h adto be kn owi ng , th e fai lu re

to rei te rat e th atrequi rem en t d oe s n otco ns ti tu te rev ers ib le erro r. Add it io na ll y , th e go ve rn m en t dur in g t ria l an d i n i ts clo si ng arg um en t re pe at ed ly em ph as iz edth atit
ne ed edto pro ve th atCo ch rankn owi ng ly pos se ss edth e co cai ne an d c oc ai ne ba se . Se e Park, 42 1 U.S. at67 4, 9 5 S . Ct. at19 13 (“ [I]n rev ie win g jury in st ru ct io ns , ou r ta skis als o t o v ie w th e ch arg e it se lf a s p artof t he who le tri al .”). The ju ry ’s de ci si on to co nv ic t Co ch ranof t he dru g c ha rg es bu t ac qu ithi m of t he am

m un it io n ch arg es de m on st rat es anun de rs ta nd in g o f th atin st ru ct io n, g iv enth atth e amm un it io n was hi dd enina be dr oo m dre ss er drawerwhi le th e dru gs were l oc at ed in pl ai n s ig htin th e co nv ert edga rag e an d p res en t i n c omm on area s o f th e h om e. On t he who le , we fin d t ha t the word in g o f th e jury ins tru ct io ns crea te d a di ffi cu lt y —a d iff ic ul ty tha t m ig hthave be enav oi de d h adth e d is tri ctco urt
an swe redth e jury’ s que st io ns . Howev er, we d o n otfin d t ha t the jury was actua ll y m is le d o r th atCo ch ranwas p reju di cedby the in st ru ct io n, g iv enth e ci rcu m st an ces of th e cas e an d t he factth atot he r pr ov is io ns of t he jury in st ru ct io ns lai d o utth e pr op er el em en ts of t he off en se . III. Co ch ranne xtarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin adm it ti ng ev id en ce o f hi s pr io r drug off

en se . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s ad m is si on of Rul e 4 04 (b ) 12ev id en ce fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 58 7 F .3d10 82 , 10 91

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) , andus e a thr ee-p arttes t i n o urev al ua ti on . “ Fi rs t, the ev id en ce m us t b e rel ev an t t o a n i ss ue ot he r th anth e d efen da nt ’s cha ract er.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mil le r , 95 9 F .2d15 35 , 15 38 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (en ba nc ). Seco nd , “ th ere m us t b e su ffi ci en t p ro of

so th ata jury cou ldfin d t ha t the de fen da ntco m m it te d the ex tri ns ic act .” Id
. “ Thi rd , th e ev id en ce m us t p os se ss pro ba ti ve va lu e th atis no t subs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh edby its un du e p reju di ce, an d t he ev id en ce m us t m eetth e ot he r requi rem en ts of Rul e 4 03 .” Id
. The go ve rn m en t i n thi s ca se was t ardy in fil in g n ot ic e th atitwis he d t o in tro du ce p rio r cri m es kn owl ed ge , bu t i t cl ai m edth atit s b el at edne ss was due to th e fac t tha t i t h adjus t l earn edth atCo ch ranin te nd edto rai se as ade fen se th e arg um en t tha t h e d idno t l iv e at11 0 Lu ci ll e Ave nu e. Co ch ranco nt en ds th atsu ch
ev id en ce i s n otrel ev an t t o t he is su e o f whe re h e res id ed . Howev er, Co ch ranpl ed
no t g ui lt y , and“ [a] defe nd an t wh o e nt ers a no t g ui lt y pl ea m ak es in te nta m at eri al is su e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Del ga do , 56 F.3d13 57 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Co ch ranals o c on te nd s t ha t h is 20 04 off en se was t oo rem ot e to be pro ba ti ve an d t ha t the off

en se was d is si m il ar b ecau se itin vo lv eddi ffer en t dru gs . W e can no t ag ree. We hav e ap pr ov edof t he in tro du ct io n o f ev id en ce re ga rd in g a ct s m or e rem ot e th anth os e atis su e h ere. Se e, e.g . , Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma tthe ws , 43 1 F .3d 1312 96 , 13 11 –1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (pe r cu ria m) (o ffen se was e ig hty ears pri or );

Uni te d Sta tes v. La mpl ey , 68 F.3d12 96 , 13 00 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (o ffen se was fif te eny ears pri or ). W e h av e al so he ldth atpri orco nv ic ti on s fo r drug tra ffi ck in g are c on si de redhi gh ly pro ba ti ve of i nt en t t o c omm itth e ch arg eddru g t raff ic ki ng of fen se s. Bro wn , 58 7 F .3dat 1 09 1. Be cau se th e co nt es te d e vi de nc e was rel ev an t, su ffi ci en tl y

supp orte d, an d m or e p ro ba ti ve th anpre jud ic ia l, we fi ndth atth e di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n g ran ti ng it s ad m is si on . IV. Fi na ll y , Coc hr anco nt en ds th atth e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l i s n ot su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on . W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er the re i s s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he jury’ s v erd ic t an d wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly de ni edCo ch ran ’s m ot io ns fora jud gm en t o f acqui tt al
. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mer ri ll , 51 3 F .3d12 93 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). In d oi ng so , we exa m in e th e ev id en ce “ in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, wi thall reas on ab le in fere nc es an d cred ib il it y

ch oi ces m ad e in th e g ov ern m en t’s fa vo r.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Or ti z , 31 8 F.3 d 1 03 0, 1 03 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (pe r cu ria m). W e aff irm a v erd ic t i f a rea so nabl e tri er o f fac t co ul d c on cl ud e th atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he s g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Id
. To s up po rt aco nv ic ti on un de r 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , th e g ov ern m en t h adto 14sh ow t ha t Co ch ranha d kno win g p os se ss io n o f th e dru gs an d a n i nt en t t o d is tri bu te

th em . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Fa us t , 45 6 F .3d13 42 , 13 45 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Altho ug h C oc hr anackno wled ge s t ha t a p os se ss io n c on vi ct io n m ay be up he ld whe re the go ve rn m en t h as sh own th atth e d efen da ntha d d om in io n a ndco nt ro l
ov er the pre m is es co nt ai ni ng th e co ntrab an d, se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Cla y , 35 5 F .3d 12 81 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (p er cu ria m), Co ch ranarg ue s t ha t n o re as on ab le jury
co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t h e en joy edsu chdo m in io n a ndco nt ro l. He co nt en ds th atno ev id en ce l in ke d h im to any of t he dru gs fou ndwithi n t he ho us e an d t ha t

“ m ere p res en ce i n t he areaof c on traba ndor a waren es s o f it s l oc at io n i s n ot su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li shpo ss es si on .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rdin er , 95 5 F .2d14 92 , 14 95 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . He als o c ha ll en ge s t he cred ib il it y

of P et ta ci o’s t es ti m on y

reg ard in g h er o bs erv at io n o f 11 0 Lu ci ll e Ave nu e fro m

he r va nt ag e p oi nta bl oc k a nda ha lf a way . W e d is ag ree wi th Co ch ran ’s ass ert io n t ha t n o e vi de nc e ti edhi m to th e co nt rab an d. Du rin g tria l, the go ve rn m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e th atCo ch ranwas fo un d s ta nd in g i n t he dri ve way of t he res id en ce wh ere t he co nt rab an d was lo cat ed with ake y

to th e h om e in hi s p oc ke t. Offi cer P et ta ci o t es ti fie d t ha t s he ha d s een hi m en te r an d e xi t the ho us e a num be r of ti m es jus t b efo re i t was sea rch ed
. Bec au se we do no t fi ndhe r te st im on y th atsh e was ab le to ob se rv e th e h ou se us in g 15bi no cu la rs to be “ in cred ib le as am at te r of law,” t ha t i s, “ rel at [in g] to fact s tha t [s he ] co ul d n otha ve po ss ib ly obs erv edor e ve nt s tha t co ul d n otha ve oc cu rred
un de r th e la ws o f na ture,” we wi ll no t d is tu rb th e jury’ s fi nd in gs . Uni te d Sta tes v. Flo res , 57 2 F .3d12 54 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ta ti onm ark s om it te d) . Add it io na ll y , itwas s ho wn tha t the dru gs were p res en t i n c omm on area s of th e h ou se an d l oc at edin pl ai n v ie w inth e co nv ert edga rag e. A let te r was fou nd withi n t he res id en ce tha t was ad dr es se d t o C oc hr an , andCo ch ran ’s dau gh te r ackno wled ge d t ha t h e fre qu en te d t he ho m e. Fin al ly, ev id en ce was pre se nt edth at Co ch ranha d b een co nv ic te d o f pr io r dr ug -rel at edcri m es , whi ch be ars on hi s in te nt . It i s t ru e th atth e d efen se pre se nt edtes ti m on y th atco nt rad ic te d t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se , bu t “ al l co nf li ct s i n t he ev id en ce m

us t d eferto th e jury’ s res ol ut io n o f th e wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce an d t he cred ib il it y of t he witne ss es .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pea rs on , 74 6 F .2d78 7, 7 94 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). “ It i s n otne ces sa ry th atth e ev id en ce ex cl ud e ev ery reas on ab le hypo th es is of i nn oc en ce o r be who ll y in co ns is te ntwith e ve ry

co nc lu si on ex cep t tha t o f gu il t, p ro vi de d t ha t a r eas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d fi ndth atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he d g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha rr is , 20 F.3d44 5, 4 52 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). W e fi ndth e ev id en ce h ere s uf

fic ie ntto su st ai n C oc hr an ’s con vi ct io ns . 16V.

Inco nc lu si on , alt ho ug h we d is ap pr ov e o f th e co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n in st ru ct io n g iv ento th e jury, w e d o n otfin d t ha t u nd er the cir cu m st an ces of t hi s pa rti cu la r cas e itm is le d t he jury orpre jud ic edCo ch ran . W e al so fin d tha t the di st ric t co urt co m

m it te d n o abu se of d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e Ru le 40 4( b)
ev id en ce an d t ha t the re i s s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o uph ol d C oc hr an ’s con vi ct io ns . AFFIRMED.

17