T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T hi s cour tgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed under the t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### N ove m b e r 9, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. M A R C E L L O J IM E N E Z ,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2152 ( D. Ct . No . CR- 0 3 - 1 8 3 2 RB) (D . N . M e x .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , KELLY , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es. Fol l ow i ng a tw o- dayt r i al , a j uryfound D efe ndant - A ppel l antM ar cel l o J i m enez gui l tyof one c ountof bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm and one c ountof bei ng a fel on i n pos s es s i on of amm uni t i on, bot h i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( e) . H e w as s ent ence d t o 235 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . O n appea l , M r . J i m enez ar gues t hat( 1) t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence bas ed on a def i ci entw arr ant ; ( 2) an al l eged e r r ori n t he j uryi ns t ruct i ons m i s s t at ed the l aw on cons truct i ve pos s es s i on, confus ed the j ury , and l ow er ed the G overnm ent ’ s bur den of- 2 -

pr oof; and ( 3) t her e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s us t ai n hi s convi ct i on. W e t ake j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d AFF I RM . I . BA CKGROUND O n February8, 2003, an unknow n per s on s hotT yr an W hi t e i n t he bac k of the nec k w h ile M r. W h ite w a s d riv in g . E y e w itn e ss e s id e n tifie d th e sh o o ter a s a “ S p a n ish ” m a le dr i vi ng a dark- col or ed D odge N eon. W i t nes s acc ount s confl i ct ed as t o w hetherthe ca r w as purpl e orbl ack. I n addi t i on, w i t nes s acc ount s i ndi cat ed thatthe s hoot erw as w i t h a femal e pas s enger . O ne ey ew i t nes s , a pas s engeri n t he ca rw i t h M r . W hi t e, compl et ed a composi t e dr aw i ng of the s us pect . A n offi cerw ho s aw the s ket ch bel i eved i tr es embl ed M r . J i m enez . A not heroffi cerknew thatM r . J i m enez ’ s gi r l fr i end w as M i chel l e Fl or es and thats he r es i ded at334 E . B onney . T her efor e, on February9 and 10, R os w el l N ew M exi co Pol i ce O ffi cerK enneth R obert s conduct ed s ur vei l l ance at334 E . B onney ; on both day s , he obs erved a bl ack N eon r egi s t er ed t o M s . Fl or es parked atthe addr es s , as w el l as a truck r egi s t er ed t o M r . J i m enez orC eci l i a M ar quez. T he addr es s l i s t ed on the truck’ s r egi s t r at i on w as al s o 334 E . B onney . O n February10, thr ee w i t nes s es t o t he s hoot i ng vi ew ed phot o arr ay s t hati ncl uded M r . J i m enez ’ s phot ogr aph. T w o of the thr ee w i tnes s es , bot h of w hom w er e i n t he ca rw i t h t he s hoot i ng vi ct i m , i dent i fi ed M r . J i m enez as the s hoot er . O ne i dent i fi ed M r . J i m enez w i t h 70% cert ai nty , the otherw i t h 50% c e r t a i n ty. On Fe b ru a r y1 0 , Off

i c e rRob e r t s o b t a i n e d a n d e x e c u t e d a s e a r c h warr a n ta t3 3 4 E. B onney . T he w arr antauthor i zed of fi cer s t o s ear ch for“anyfi r earm s , anypi ece s ofO f f ic e rs d id n o t f

in d e v id e n c e lin k in g M r. J im e n e z to th e s h o o tin g o f M r. W h ite . 1

- 3 - fi r earm s , anyamm uni t i on orpart s of amm uni t i on, anycarr y i ng devi ces forfi r earm s , any cl eani ng pr oduct s forfi r earm s , [and] anyr ece i pt s s how i ng the s el l i ng orow ner s hi p of fi r earm s . ” M s . Fl or es and hers on G i l ber tw er e both pr es entdur i ng the s ear ch. W hen offi cer s arr i ved att he home, G i l bertw as s i t t i ng on a couc h i n t he den w i t h an unl oaded

. 223 cal i berr i fl e nextt o hi m . G i l ber ti ndi cat ed thatther e w er e otherguns i n t he hous e, that he ow ned t hem al l , and t hat he kep tthem l ock ed in a gu n safe. Indeed , there w as a g u n sa f e in th e d in in g ro o m . A f ter re triev in g th e k e yf

ro m th e p o c k e t o f

a sh irt h a n g in g in the di ni ng r oom , G i l bertunl ocked the s afe forthe off i cer s t o s ear ch. T he off i cer s found s e v e n f ir e a rm s in s id e . N otal l of the fi r earm s w er e i n t he s afe . T he off i cer s al s o found a . 410 gauge s hot gun on t op of a pl as t i c ca r ti n t he di ni ng r oom , as w el l as a part i al l ydi s s embl ed M 200 s hot gun i ns i de a c l os et . I n addi t i on, offi cer s found amm uni t i on uns ecur ed thr oughoutt he hous e, i ncl udi ng . 410 gauge s hot gun s hel l s and . 22 cal i beramm uni t i on on t op of the gun s afe , and . 22 and . 380 cal i beramm uni t i on i ns i de a ki t chen c abi net . M r . J i m enez w as s ubs equent l yarr es t ed forbei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of fi r earm s and amm uni t i on. 1 P r i o rt o t r i a l , M r . J i m e n e z m o v e d t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e s e i z e d a t3 3 4 E . B o n n e y, a rg u in g th a t th e re w e re in su f f icie n t f a c ts in th e a f

f id a v it t o su p p o rt a f

in d in g o f p ro b a b le caus e, t hatt he w arr antw as cons t i tut i onal l yoverbr oad, and thatthe off i cer s exce eded the s cope of t he w arr antbys ei zi ng fi r earm s and l ett er s addr es s ed t o M r . J i m enez . T he- 4 -

D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n a s to th e lette rs, b u t d e n ied th e m o tio n w ith re sp e c t to the fi r earm s . A tt r i al , M r . J i m enez obj ect ed t o a j uryi ns t ruct i on r el at ed t o t he i s s ue of cons truct i ve pos s es s i on, butt he D i s t r i ctC our toverrul ed hi s obj ect i on. M r . J i m enez c o n tes ts th e se ru lin g s a n d a lso a rg u e s th a t th e re w a s in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt h is convi ct i on. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . M oti on t o S up press M r . J i m enez appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence s ei zed a t334 E . B onney , ar gui ng t hat( 1) the af fi davi tunder l y i ng the s ear ch w arr antw as in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt a f

in d in g o f p ro b a b le c a u se , (2 ) th e w a rra n t f a iled to sp e c if

yw ith part i cul ar i t yt he thi ngs t o be s ei zed, and ( 3) the off i cer s exec ut i ng the s ear ch exc eede d t he s cope of t he w arr antbys ei zi ng fi r earm s thatw er e nothandguns . I n r evi ew i ng a di s t r i ct c o u rt’s d e n ial o f

a m o tio n to su p p re ss , w e v iew th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t an d a c c e p t th e d istric t co u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s u n les s th e ya re c lea rly e rr o n e o u s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. D anhauer , 2 2 9 F .3 d 1 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). “D et erm i nat i ons r el at i ng t o t he s uffi ci encyof a s ear ch w arr antand the appl i cabi l i t yof the good- fai th exce pt i on ar e conc l us i ons of l aw , how ever , w hi ch thi s C our tr evi ew s de novo. ” I d. I n t hi s cas e, w e nee d notdeci de w hetherpr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed bec aus e the o f f ice rs’ c o n d u c t in e x e c u tin g th e se a rc h w a rra n t cle a rlyf a lls w ith in th e g o o d -f

a ith exce pt i on t o t he exc l us i onaryrul e. D anhauer , 2 2 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 0 5 (c o u rts h a v e d isc re tio n to p ro c e e d d ire c tlyto a n a n a ly sis o f th e g o o d -f

a ith e x c e p tio n to th e e x c lu sio n a ryru le- 5 -

w i thoutfi r s taddr es s i ng t he under l y i ng Four t h A m endmentques t i on) . W e al s o concl ude thatal though t he w arr antfai l ed t o s peci fyw i t h par t i cul ar i t ythe thi ngs t o be s ei zed, the o f f ice rs’ re lian c e o n th e o v e rlyb ro a d w a rra n t als o f a lls w ith in th e g o o d -f

a ith e x c e p tio n to the exc l us i onaryrul e. T he Supr eme C our ti n U ni t ed Stat es v. Leon es t abl i s hed thatevi dence obt ai ned pur s uantt o a w arr antt hati s l at erfound t o be def ect i ve i s notpr oper l yexcl uded w hen offi cer s r el yon t he w arr anti n obj ect i ve good fa i t h. 468 U . S. 897, 922 ( 1984) . T he excl us i on of “r el i abl e phy s i cal evi dence s ei zed byoffi cer s r eas onabl yr el y i ng on a w arr anti s s ued bya det ache d and neutr al m agi s t r at e, ” i d. at913, does nots erve the pr i m arypurpos e of the Four t h A m endmentexcl us i onaryrul e— det err ence of pol i ce m is c o n d u c t, s ee i d. at913–23. T her e ar e fourci r cumst ance s , how ever , i n w hi ch an offi cercannotbe found t o have r el i ed on a w arr anti n good fai t h: ( 1) w hen the i s s ui ng m agi s tr at e w as m i s l ed byan af fi davi tcont ai ni ng fal s e i nform at i on ori nform at i on thatt he aff i ants houl d have know n w as fal s e butforhi s r eckl es s di s r egar d forthe truth; ( 2) w hen th e iss u in g m a g istra te w h o llya b a n d o n e d h is ju d icia l ro le; (3 ) w h e n th e a f f id a v it s uppor t i ng a w arr anti s s o l acki ng i n i ndi ci a of pr obabl e ca us e as t o r enderoffi ci al bel i ef i n i t s exi s t ence ent i r el yunr eas onabl e; and ( 4) w hen the w arr anti s s o fac i al l ydefi ci ent th a t th e e x e c u tin g o f

f ic e r c o u ld n o t r e a s o n a b ly b e lie v e it w a s v a lid . I d. at923. 1 . N ex u s B e tw e e n P la c e to b e S e a rc h e d a n d S u sp e c tedC rim in a l A c tivity M r. Jim e n e z f

irst c h a llen g e s th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s d e ter m in a tio n o f p ro b a b le c a u se , arg u in g th a t th e f a c ts a lleg e d in th e a f

f id a v it d id n o t p ro v id e e n o u g h in f o rm a tio n to- 6 -

e sta b lish a n e x u s b e tw e e n th e p lac e se a rc h e d , 3 3 4 E . B o n n e y , an d th e item s s o u g h t (in th is c a s e , f

ir e a rm s a n d a m m u n itio n re la te d to th e F e b ru a ry 8 s h o o tin g ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. G onz al es , 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 2 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ It is w e ll-se ttl e d th a t f o r p ro b a b le caus e t o exi s tt her e mustbe a ne xus betw een the contr aband t o be s ei zed ors us pect ed c ri m in a l a c tiv ity a n d th e p la c e to b e s e a rc h e d .” (q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d a lte ra tio n o m itte d )) . Speci fi cal l y , M r . J i m enez cl ai m s t hatthe af fi davi tl acke d anyi ndi cat i on thathe l i ved at 334 E . B onneyand that , i n anyevent , the af fi davi tl acke d a dec l ar at i on as t o w hythe a f f ia n t b e lie v e d e v id e n c e o r i n s tru m e n ta litie s o f th e b a tte ry m ig h t b e f

o u n d in th e h o u s e . T h e re f o re , ac c o rd in g to M r. Jim e n e z , the a f f id a v it w a s “ so lac k in g in in d icia o f p ro b a b le caus e as t o r enderoffi ci al bel i ef i n i t s exi s t ence ent i r el yunr eas onabl e. ” Leon , 468 U . S. at 923. T he af

fi davi tpr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng i nform at i on: ( 1) a “Spani s h” man i n a darkcol or ed ( ei t herpurpl e orbl ack) 1997 or1998- m odel D odge N eon s hotthe vi ct i m on February8, 2003; ( 2) a fe m al e w as a pas s engeri n t he N eon atthe t i m e of the s hoot i ng; ( 3 ) M r . J i me n e z ma t c h e d t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e s h o o t e rp r o v i d e d b ye y e wi t n e s s e s ; ( 4 ) t wo of thr ee e y ew i t nes s es , bot h pas s enger s i n t he ca rw i t h t he vi ct i m , i dent i fi ed M r . J i m enez as the s hoot erfr om phot o arr ay s , one w i t h 50% cert ai ntyand the otherw i t h 70% cert ai nty ; (5) an o ffi cer knew t hat M r. Ji m enez’s gi rl fri end w as M i chell e F l ores; (6) M s. Fl or es ow ned a bl ack 1997 N eon; ( 7) s he r es i ded at334 E . B onney ; ( 8) herN eon w as p a r k e d a t3 3 4 E. Bon n e yo n Fe b ru a ry9 a n d 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 ; ( 9 ) a tru c k r e g i s t e r e d t o 3 3 4 E. Bon n e yi n t h e n a me s o f M r . J i me n e z o rCe c i l i a M a r q u e z was a l s o p a r k e d a t3 3 4 E.- 7 -

B onneyon February9 and 10; and ( 10) both M s . Fl or es and M r . J i m enez have “ Spani s h” la s t n a m e s . W e f irst n o te th a t “th e a f

f id a v it su p p o rtin g th e se a rc h w a rra n t n e e d n o t co n tain di r ectevi dence orper s onal know l edge thatthe i t ems s oughtar e l ocat ed atthe pl ace t o be s ear ched. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. N

olan , 199 F. 3d 1180, 1183 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . R ather , the m agi s tr at e j udge “maydr aw r eas onabl e i nfer ence s fr om the mat er i al pr ovi ded i n t he w arr antappl i cat i on. ” I d. W e a lso n o te th a t f

o r c e rta in typ e s o f

e v id e n c e , itis re a so n a b le t o as s um e s uch evi dence w oul d be keptata s us pect ’ s r es i dence “and a n aff i davi tneed not c o n ta in p e rs o n a l o b s e rv a tio n s th a t a d e f e n d a n t d id k e e p s u c h e v id e n c e a t h is re s id e n c e .” I d. at1184 ( nar cot i cs and drug- t r aff i cki ng r ecor ds ) . A s s uch, the fa ctthatthe w arr ant l acke d a dec l ar at i on t hatevi dence of the s hoot i ng i s l i kel yt o be found a t334 E . B onney d o e s n o t n e c e s s a ri ly re n d e r t h e w a rr a n t in v a lid . See U ni t ed Stat es v. R eye s , 798 F. 2d 380 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) (p ro b a b le c a u se to se a rc h d e f e n d a n t’s re sid e n c e e x iste d th o u g h a f f id a v it l acke d anyr efe r ence t o t he conduc t i ng of unl aw ful act i vi t i es atthe r es i dence ) . N everthel es s , M r . J i m enez poi nt s outthatthe af fi davi tdi d nots peci fythathe l i ved at334 E . B onney . I n t he abs ence of s uch an a l l egat i on, he ar gues , ther e i s nothi ng t o connec t the evi dence s oughtand the pl ace t o be s ear ched. A s not ed above , how ever , w e nee d not d ec ide w h ethe r th e m ag istrate jud g e c o u ld rea so n ab lyinf er f rom the a ff

idav itthat M r. J i m enez l i ved at334 E . B onneyand thatevi dence of the batt eryw as l i kel yt o be found th e re b e c a u s e th e o f

f ic e rs ’ r e lia n c e o n th e w a rr a n t w a s o b je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . “W hen r evi ew i ng t he r eas onabl enes s of an of fi cer ’ s r el i ance upon a s ear ch- 8 -

w arran t, this co u rtm u st ex am ine th e u n d erly ing d o cu m en ts t o d eterm ine w h ethe r th eyare devoi d of fa ctual s uppor t . ” D anhauer , 2 2 9 F . 3 d at 10 0 6 (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). In G onz al es , this C o u rt u p h e ld th e d istric t co u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e g o o d -f a ith e x c e p tio n d id n o t ap p ly . 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 2 5 . In th a t ca se , the a f f id a v it so u g h t p e rm iss io n to s ear ch “321 E. C hur ch” f orfi r earm s and amm uni t i on. T he onl yi nform at i on i n t he af fid av itli n k ing the a d d ress to c ri m inal ac ti v ityw as th e statem en t th at, in the d etec ti v e’s tw o y ear s of l aw enfor cementexper i ence , “fi r earm [s ] ar e oft en keptatthe r es i dence as w el l as i n vehi cl es . ” I

d. at1227–28. T he af

fi davi tdi d nots peci fythat321 E . C hur ch w as the def endant ’ s r es i dence ort hatt her e w as anyot herconnec t i on betw een the l ocat i on and th e d e f e n d a n t o r t h e s u s p e c te d c ri m in a l a c tiv ity. I d. at1228. N ordi d i texpl ai n w hyt he o f f ic e r t h o u g h t th e ite m s to b e s e iz e d w o u ld b e lo c a te d a t th e re s id e n c e . I d. a t1 2 3 0 . We hel d that“good fa i t h m ayexi s tw hen a m i ni m alnexus betw een the pl ace t o be s ear ched and the s us pect ed cr i m i nal act i vi t yi s es t abl i s hed. ” See i d. a t 1 2 3 1 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T he af fi davi tati s s ue i n G onz al es , h o w e v e r, p ro v id e d n o s u c h n e x u s . I d. T h o u g h we a c k n o w led g e d th a t f

ire a rm s a re o f

ten k e p t at a su sp e c t’s re sid e n c e , the re w e re n o f a c ts in the a ff idav it“e stab li sh ing the re side n ce b elon g ed to o r w as o therw ise l ink ed to M r. G onzal es . ” I

d. ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ove , 848 F. 2d 137, 139–40 ( 9th C i r . 1988) ( good fai th w as l acki ng w hen s uppor t i ng aff i davi tfai l ed t o pr ovi de anyconnec t i on b e tw e e n re s id e n c e to b e s e a rc h e d a n d s u s p e c t) . I n contr as tt o G onz al es , t he af fi davi ther e s uppl i es the mi ni m al nexus betw een the s u s p e c t a n d th e p la c e to b e s e a rc h e d n e c e s s a ry f o r t h e g o o d f

a ith e x c e p tio n to a p p ly.- 9 -

O ffi cer s knew t hatM r . J i m enez w as r om ant i cal l yi nvol ved w i t h M s . Fl or es . M s . Fl or es ow ned a bl ack N eon, w hi ch w as cons i s t entw i t h ey ew i t nes s es ’ des cr i pt i ons of the ca r us ed bythe s hoot er , and i tw as parked i n fr ontof herhous e i n t he day s fol l ow i ng the s hoot i ng. Fur t herm or e, a truck r egi s t er ed t o 334 E . B onneyi n M r . J i m enez ’ s name w as a lso p a rk e d in f

ro n t o f th e re sid e n c e in th e d a y s f o llo w in g th e sh o o tin g . T h e a f f id a v it i s notdevoi d of fa ct s l i nki ng M r . J i m enez t o t he pl ace t o be s ear ched; ther efor e, w e ca nnot cons i derthe off

i cer s ’ r el i ance on t he w arr antt o be “e nt i r el yunr eas onabl e. ” See Leon , 4 6 8 U .S . at 9 2 3 ; s ee al

s o N olan , 199 F. 3d at1185 ( good fai t h exce pt i on appl i ed t o s ear ch of def endantdrug- deal er ’ s hous e w hen af fi davi ts t at ed thatdrug deal er s s om et i m es m a in ta in re c o rd s a n d d ru g s in e a s ily a c c e s s ib le lo c a tio n s ). 2. O ver br eadth of

the W ar r ant T he Four t h A m endmentm andat es w arr ant s “part i cul ar l ydes cr i b[e] the pl ace t o be se a rc h e d , an d th e p e rso n s o r th in g s to b e se ize d .” U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . IV . A w a rra n t is s uffi ci ent l ys peci fi c i f i t“ena bl es t he s ear chert o r eas onabl yas cert ai n and i dent i fythe thi ngs author i zed t o be s ei zed. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. R ober t

s on , 2 1 F .3 d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 3 (1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) . “ [ A] wa r r a n tt h a td e s c r i b e s th e i t e ms t o b e s e i z e d i n b r o a d o rg e n e r i c t e r ms m aybe val i d w hen the des cr i pt i on i s as s peci fi c as the ci r cumst ance s and the natur e of the act i vi tyunderi nves t i gat i on perm i t . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. R i ccardi , 4 0 5 F .3 d 8 5 2 , 8 6 2 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) . “H ow ever , t he Four t h A m endmentr equi r es thatthe governm entdes cr i be the i t ems t o be s ei zed w i t h as m uch s peci fi ci t yas the governm ent ’ s know l edge a nd ci r cumst ance s al l ow . ” I d. M r. Jim e n e z c o n ten d s th a t th e w a rra n t’s a u th o riz a tio n to- 10 -

sea rch fo r “a n yfirearm s, ” w as c o n sti tuti o n all yo v erb roa d b ec au se o ff icers w ere s p e c if ic a lly in v e s tig a tin g a c ri m e in v o lv in g a h a n d g u n . T h e a f f id a v it u n d e rly in g th e se a rc h w a rra n t in d ica tes th a t se v e ra l eyew itn e ss e s to the cr i m e coul d noti dent i fyt he s hoot erorthe type of gun he us ed. A tthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, how ever , O ffi cerR ober t s t es t i fi ed thatatl eas tone w i t nes s had i ndi cat ed thatt he s hoot erus ed a ha ndgun. H e furt hers t at ed thathe s us pect ed M r . J i m enez , w hom O ffi cer R ober t s knew had a pr i orfel onyconvi ct i on, of bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fi r earm — i n w hi ch ca s e M r . J i m enez ’ s pos s es s i on of “a nyfi r earm ” w oul d be evi dence of the comm i s s i on of a c r i m e. T he af fi davi tdi d notr evea l thatM r . J i m enez had a pr i or fel onyconvi ct i on, how ever , and he ther efor e cont ends thatas t o t he i nves t i gat i on of the b a tte ry, th e w a rr a n t w a s o v e rb ro a d . W e a g re e th a t th e w a rra n t w a s o v e rb ro a d . T h o u g h th e re w a s p ro b a b le c a u se to s ear ch fora handgun, t he w arr antauthor i zed a s ear ch for“anyfi r earm s . ” See U ni t ed Stat es v. G ar dner , 537 F. 2d 861, 862 ( 6th C i r . 1976) ( percur i am) ( hol di ng w arr antw as overbr oad w hen pr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed t o s ear ch fora pi s t ol butw arr antperm i t t ed s ear ch and s ei zur e of “ al l fi r earm s and amm uni t i on”) . Si m i l ar l y , though pr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed thatM r . J i m enez w as a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm , the af

fi davi tunder l y i ng the s ear ch w arr antm ade no ment i on of hi s s t atus as a fe l on. E ven s o, w e conc l ude thatthe g o o d -f a ith e x c e p tio n a p p lie s to th e o f f ic e rs ’ r e lia n c e o n th e w a rr a n t. See Ri ccardi , 40 5 F. 3d at863 ( appl y i ng good- fai t h exce pt i on t o w arr antthatfai l ed t o m eetthe r equi r ementof p a rticu lar ity ). T h e re is n o su g g e stio n h e re th a t O f f ice r R o b e rts in ten tio n a llyo r re c k les slyM r . J i m enez ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s uppr es s i on of l et t er s found dur i ng 2 the s ear ch i s i ncons i s t entw i t h t he court ’ s r efus al t o s uppr es s the fi r earm s . H e as s ert s t hat nei thert he fi r earm s nort he l ett er s ar e i m m edi at el yappar entevi dence of cr i m e thatcan be seize d u n d er the p lai n v iew ex ce p ti o n . T o the c o n tr ary , u n li k e f ir ea rm s in a fe lon ’s re s id e n c e , le tte rs d o n o t im m e d ia te ly ap p e a r t o b e e v id e n c e o f a c ri m e .

- 11 - om i t t ed from his affidavi tt hat one ey ew i t ness saw the sho oteruse a ha nd gu n. T he m ost thatcan be s ai d i s t hathe “omi t t ed the i nform at i on ‘ outof negl i gence ori nnocent m i s t ake, ’ w hi ch i s i ns uffi ci entt o over come a fi ndi ng of good fa i t h. ” G onz al es , 399 F. 3d at1229 ( ci t i ng Franks v. D el aw are , 438 U . S. 154, 171 ( 1978) ) . M or eover , ther e i s no su g g esti o n that O ff

icer R o b erts i n tention all yo r reck lesslyo m itted f rom h is aff

idav itM r. Jim e n e z ’s s tatu s a s a f

e lo n . If th e a f f id a v it co n tain e d su c h in f o rm a tio n , the n th e re w o u ld b e p ro b a b le c a u s e to s e a rc h f o r “ a n yf ir e a rm s ” a s a u th o ri z e d b yth e w a rr a n t. See U ni t ed S ta tes v . C a m

p b e ll , 256 F. 3d 381, 389 ( 6th C i r . 2001) ( pol i ce i nves t i gat i ng theftof s peci fi c fi r earm s obt ai ned w arr antt o s ear ch for“al l fi r earm s ”; w arr antw as notoverbr oad b e c a u se a f

f id a v it rev e a led th a t su sp e c t w a s a f e lo n ); U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 62 Fed. A p p ’x 4 1 9 , 4 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( s a m e ). 3 . Scope of

the W ar r ant Fi nal l y , M r . J i m enez ar gues t he exe cut i ng offi cer s exce eded the s cope of the w arr antbys ei zi ng t he fi r earm s beca us e the off i cer s w er e i nves t i gat i ng an al l eged h a n d g u n c rim e . T h e re is n o m e rit to th is a rg u m e n t. T h e sc o p e o f th e w a rra n t q u ite cl ear l yw as notl i m i t ed t o handguns . W e pr evi ous l yhel d t hatthe good- fai t h exce pt i on appl i es t o t he off

i cer s ’ s ei zur e of the fi r earm s . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e hol d t hat 2W e a d d re ss M r. Jim e n e z ’s s u f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e a rg u m e n t p rio r to 3 r evi ew i ng hi s cont ent i on t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n i ns t ruct i ng the j uryon t he e le m e n ts o f

th e c ri m e b e c a u s e o u r d is c u s s io n o f th e f o rm e r i s re le v a n t to th e la tte r. A l t hough M r . J i m enez s ugges t s i n a hea di ng thathe i s al s o chal l engi ng the 4 s uffi ci encyof the evi dence r el at ed t o hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of amm uni t i on, he neverm akes anyar gum entorr el at es anyfac t s on t hati s s ue. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l not a d d re s s th a t is s u e h e re .

- 12 - the D i stri ctC ou rtproperl yden i ed M r. Ji m enez’s m oti on t o sup press . B . Suffi ci encyof the Evi dence 3 M r. Jim en ez arg u es th at th e e v iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al w as in su ff ici en t t o su p p o rt h is c o n v ictio n f

o r u n law f

u l p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm . W e re v iew th e re c o rd d e n o v o to

4 d e te rm in e w h e th e r, v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, a re a s o n a b le ju ry c o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t g u ilty b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. U ni t ed Stat es v. Y

ehl i ng , 4 5 6 F .3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). In so d o in g , “[ w ]e c o n sid e r b o th d i r e c ta n d c i r c u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , t o g e t h e rwi t h th e r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s t o b e d r a wn ther efr om , butdo notw ei gh confl i ct i ng evi dence orcons i derthe cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es . ” I d. T o convi ctM r . J i m enez , t he G overnm entw as r equi r ed t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat : ( 1) M r . J i m enez w as pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a fel ony ; ( 2) he ther eaf t erknow i ngl ypos s es s ed a f i r earm oramm uni t i on; and ( 3) the pos s es s i on w as i n or a f f e c tin g in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol onna , 3 6 0 F . 3 d 1 1 6 9 , 1 1 7 8 (10 th C ir . 2004) ; 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . M r . J i m enez chal l enges onl ythe s econd e l ementon app eal , argui ng t hat the G ov ernm ent fai l ed to prove h e po sses sed t he fir earm s.- 13 -

P o s s e s s io n u n d e r § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) c a n b e e ith e r a c tu a l o r c o n s tru c tiv e . U ni t ed Stat es v. Mill s , 29 F. 3d 545, 549 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) . A defe ndanthas cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of an obj ectw hen he “ know i ngl yhol ds t he pow ert o exer ci s e contr ol ordom i ni on overi t . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez , 372 F. 3d 1207, 1211 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( al t er at i on and ci t at i on o m itt e d ). W h e n a d e f

e n d a n t h a s e x c lu siv e p o ss e ss io n o f th e p lac e w h e re th e o b

jec t is f o u n d , th e n k n o w le d g e , d o m in io n , a n d c o n tr o l o v e r t h e o b je c t m a yb e in f

e rr e d . U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi chel , 4 4 6 F . 3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W h e n tw o o r m o re p e o p le o c c u p ya g iv e n sp a c e , h o w e v e r, th e g o v e rn m e n t m u st p re se n t ad d iti o n a l ev id e n c e “ to s how s om e conne ct i on ornexus betw een the def endantand the fi r earm orcontr aband. ” Mill s , 29 F. 3d at549. W e w i l l uphol d a convi ct i on bas ed on cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on i n a jo in t o c c u p a n c ysitu a tio n w h e n th e re is “ so m e e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g a t lea st a p lau sib le i nfer ence thatt he def

endanthad know l edge of and ac ces s t o t he w eapon orcontr aband. ” I d. at55 0 (ci t at i on om i t t ed). F i nall y , the g ov ernm ent need n ot s ho w i ntent i on t o ex erci se thatdom i ni on orcontr ol , “nori s i tnece s s aryt o s how thatthe def endantactual l yow ned the w eapons — m er e pos s es s i on i s enough. ” C ol onna , 3 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 9 . Fi r s t , t he j ur ycoul d pr oper l yconcl ude thatM r . J i m enez w as a j oi ntoccupa ntatt he E . B o n n e ya d d re ss o n F e b ru a ry1 0 , 2 0 0 3 . W h e n o f f ice rs e x e c u ted th e se a rc h w a rra n t, theyfound m en’ s cl ot hi ng and s hoes i n t he mast erbedr oom cl os et . A m ong t he cl othi ng w as a s w eat s hi r tw i t h M r . J i m enez ’ s ni ckname, “C hi l l s , ” on i t . T heyal s o found a box w i th the i ni t i al “M . ” and the w or ds “J i m enez ” and “ C hi l l s ” appe ar i ng on t he out s i de of the box. A ft erbei ng arr es t ed, an off i ceras ked M r . J i m enez forhi s addr es s ; he s ai d i tw asC ountone of the i ndi ctm entchar ged M r . J i m enez w i t h pos s es s i on of t en di ffe r ent 5 fi r earm s . T o convi ct , t he j ur ydi d notneed t o fi nd thatM r . J i m enez pos s es s ed al l of the

- 14 - 334 E . B onney . B ot h M i chel l e and G i l ber tFl or es t es t i fi ed thatM r . J i m enez w as r es i di ng w ith them at 33 4 E . B o n n eyo n F eb rua ry1 0 . F u rth erm o re, be g inn ing in 2 0 0 1 , M r. J i m enez cons i s t ent l yr epor t ed hi s r es i dence as 334 E . B onneyt o hi s pr obat i on offi cer , and s h e m a d e w e e k ly v is its to th a t a d d re s s o v e r t h e c o u rs e o f th e f o llo w in g y e a r. M or eover , t her e i s s uffi ci entevi dence i n t he r ecor d on appea l t o s uppor tthe concl us i on t hatM r . J i m enez had know l edge of and ac ces s t o fi r earm s . T he evi dence s h o w s th a t M r. J im e n e z h a d k n o w le d g e o f th e f ir e a rm s in th e g u n s a f

e a n d in th e c lo s e t. D ur i ng M r . J i m enez ’ s i nt ervi ew atthe pol i ce s t at i on, an off i cert ol d M r . J i m enez ,

“ Yo u ’ v e g o ta l o to f

g u n s i n y o u rh o u s e . ” M r . J i me n e z r e s p o n d e d th a t“ [ t ] h o s e a r e my k id ’s g u n s . . . .” H is s tate m e n t th a t th e f ire a rm s b e lo n g e d to so m e o n e e lse e v id e n c e s h is k n o w le d g e o f

th e irp re s e n c e . See Col onna , 3 6 0 F . 3 d at 11 7 9 (find ing k n o w ledg e w h ere d e f e n d a n t to ld o f

f ice rs th e g u n s in h is b e d ro o m b e lo n g e d to h is w if e ). T h e ju ryc o u ld al s o r eas onabl yconcl ude thatM r . J i m enez had s peci fi c know l edge thatguns w er e s t or ed i n a cl os etand noti n t he gun s afe . D ur i ng the s ame i nt ervi ew M r . J i m enez s ai d he “f ound [s om e guns ] up i n t he cl os et ” and t ol d G i l ber tthatthe guns had t o be i n t he gun s afe . T he cl os etM r . J i m enez des cr i bed w as t he cl os etw her e off i cer s found the W i nches t erM 200 s h o tg u n . M r . J i m enez al s o had ac ces s t o atl eas tthe W i nches t erM 200 and . 410 gauge s hot guns . W i t h r es pectt o t he W i nches t erM 200, M r . J i m enez acknow l edged thatthe

5fi r earm s , s o l ong as t he G overnm entpr oved bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthathe pos s es s ed

one of them. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed the j urythatt o convi ct , the j ur or s m us tagr ee u n a n im o u slyo n w h ich f ire a rm h e p o ss e ss e d . T h e ju ryw a s n o t re q u ire d to sp e c if yin its ver di ctw hi ch fi r earm s i ts peci fi cal l yfound M r . J i m enez t o have pos s es s ed.

- 15 - cl os eti n w hi ch i tw as found w as “mycl os et. . . w her e myheat er ’ s at . ” W hen as ked w hetherpol i ce w oul d fi nd hi s fi ngerpr i nt s on anyof the guns , M r . J i m enez r es ponded, “I hope not . I have— I do puts om e aw ay ; y ou know w hatI m ean?” W i t h r es pectt o t he

. 410 gauge s hot gun, al t hough G i l ber tt es t i fi ed thathe w as a hunt er , thathe ow ned al l of the guns and the gun s afe , and thathe onl yr emoved t he . 410 gauge s hot gun fr om the gun s a f e te m p o ra ri ly, th e ju ry w a s e n title d to d is b e lie v e h is te s tim o n y . See U ni t ed Stat es v. W aldr oop , 4 3 1 F . 3 d 7 3 6 , 7 4 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (no ti n g issue s o f w itn ess c red ibil ityare del egat ed exc l us i vel yt o t he j ur y ) . M or eover , as not ed above , thatanotherper s on ow ned th e g u n s d o e s n o t e s ta b lis h th a t a d e f e n d a n t d id n o t p o s s e s s th e g u n s . See Col onna , 360 F . 3 d a t1 1 7 9 ( g o v e r n me n tn e e d n o ts h o w t h e d e f e n d a n to wn e d th e p r o h i b i t e d i t e m; pos s es s i on i s enough) . T hus , t he j urycoul d r eas onabl yi nferthatM r . J i m enez had know l edge of

and ac ces s t o, ata mi ni m um , the W i nches t erM 200 s hot gun and . 410 gauge s hot gun. M r . J i m enez ’ s r el i ance on Mill s , 29 F. 3d 545, t o di r ecta fi ndi ng of i ns uffi ci ent evi dence i s m i s pl ace d. I n Mill s , al t hough the governm entpr es ent ed evi dence thatthe d e f e n d a n t h a d d o m in io n a n d c o n tro l o v e r th e d in in g ro o m w h e re f ire a rm s w e re f

o u n d , it f a iled to e sta b lish th e d e f e n d a n t knew the fi r earm s w er e hi dden w i t hi n a compar t m entof th e d in in g ro o m ta b le . I d. at550. H er e, the guns w er e nothi dden, and ther e i s no- 16 -

ques t i on thatM r . J i m enez w as aw ar e of thei rpr es ence . A l l thati s r equi r ed t o uphol d the jury ’s ve rdict i s “so m e e v iden ce to su p p o rtat l ea st a p laus ible inf ere n ce ” tha t M r. J im e n e z h a d k n o w le d g e o f a n d a c c e s s to th e w e a p o n s a n d a m m u n itio n . I d. at 54 9 . T h ere i s m or e than s uffi ci entevi dence i n the r ecor d on thi s poi nt , and ac cor di ngl y , w e w i l l not d istu rb th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. C . J uryI ns t ruct i ons A tt r i al , M r . J i m enez obj ect ed t o J uryI ns t ruct i on 17, an i ns truct i on r el at ed t o the i ssue of co nst ruct i ve p ossess i on . JuryInstruct i on 17 st at es: I n or dert o s us t ai n a convi ct i on bas ed upon cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on, the governm entm us tpr es entevi dence s uppor t i ng atl eas ta pl aus i bl e i nfer ence thatt he def

endanthad know l edge of and ac ces s t o t he w eapon or contr aband. T he governm entneed notpr ove thatthe def endanthad the i nt ent i on t o exer ci s e domi ni on and contr ol . W her e the def endanti n a j oi nt o c c u p a n c ysitu a tio n h a d k n o w led g e o f a n d a c c e ss to th e w e a p o n s, th e re is s u f f ic ie n t n e x u s to in f

e r d o m in io n a n d c o n tr o l. M r. Jim e n e z a rg u e d to th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e in stru c tio n , w h ich w a s d e riv e d f ro m th is C our t ’ s opi ni on i n C ol onna , 3 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 9 , is n e c e ss a rilylim ited to th e sp e c if ic f a c ts of C o lo n n a . I n t hatcas e, the def endantw as char ged w i t h cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of fi r earm s and amm uni t i on pol i ce of fi cer s found i ns i de the t op dr es s erdr aw eri n a bedr oom the d ef en d an t sha red w ith h is w ife. B ec au se th ese w ere n o t th e f ac ts of h is case , M r. J i m enez ar gued, t he i ns t ruct i on di d notappl y . T he D i s t r i ctC our toverrul ed hi s obj ect i on, e x p lain in g th a t C ol onna ’ s know l edge a nd acc es s rul e forcons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on i n j oi nt occupa ncycas es i s notfac t - s peci fi c and r epr es ent s the l aw of the C i r cui t . M r . J i m enez- 17 -

re n e w s th is o b

je c tio n o n a p p e a l a n d ra is e s o th e r a rg u m e n ts re la te d to J u ry In s tru c tio n 1 7 . W hen a speci fi c obj ect i on w as m ade at tri al , w e exam i ne the j uryi nst ruct i on s as a w hol e and “ r evi ew de novo the pr opr i etyof an i ndi vi dual j uryi ns t ruct i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. A l - R ekabi , 454 F. 3d 1113, 1119 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . “I f an i ns t ruct i onal err oroccurr ed, w e mustdet erm i ne w hethert he convi ct i on m us tbe s etas i de bec aus e the err orhad a su b sta n tial in f

lu e n c e o n th e o u tco m e o f th e trial o r le a v e s u s in g ra v e d o u b t as to its i nfl uence on t he ver di ct . I f the err ori s harm l es s the convi ct i on w i l l s t and. ” I d. (qu o tat ion o m itted). W h en the d ef en d an t fail s to m ak e a sp ec ifi c o b jecti o n to a ju ry in s tru c tio n , h o w e v e r, o u r r e v ie w is f o r p la in e rr o r. U

n itedS ta tes v . B o rn

field , 145 F. 3d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 2 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); see al so Fed. R . C r i m . P. 30( d) ( r equi r i ng a part yt o s peci fy th e g ro u n d s f

o r a n o b jec tio n to a ju ryin stru c tio n ; f a ilu re to d o so p re c lu d e s a p p e llate rev iew , “e x ce p t as p erm itted u n d er R u le 52 (b)” ). A s t o M r . J i m enez ’ s cont ent i on thatappl i cat i on of the C ol onna s t andar d m us tbe l i m i t ed t o t he s peci fi c fa ct s of thatcas e, w e di s agr ee. A s the D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, not hi ng i n C ol onna s ugges t s t hati t s di s cus s i on of j oi ntoccupa ncyand cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on w as fac t - s peci fi c. W e s ai d t hat“[i ] n cas es of j oi ntoccupa ncy , w her e the governm ent s eeks t o pr ove cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on byci r cumst ant i al evi dence , i tm us tpr es ent evi dence t o s how s om e conne ct i on ornexus betw een the def endantand the fi r earm or othercontr aband, ” i ncl udi ng “evi dence s uppor t i ng atl eas ta pl aus i bl e i nfer ence thatt he defe ndanthad know l edge of and ac ces s t o t he w eapon orcontr aband. ” C ol onna , 360 F . 3 d at 11 7 9 (qu o tat ion o m itted). T h ere w as su ff ici en t evid en ce o f th e d ef en d an t’ s- 18 -

know l edge of

t he fi r earm s beca us e he vol unt eer ed thathe knew w her e theyw er e and that theyw ere hi s w i fe’s and no this . T here w as suffi ci ent evi den ce of the d efen dan t ’s access t o the fi r earm s beca us e theyw er e i ns i de hi s beds i de dr es s er . N othi ng i n ourdi s cus s i on su g g e sts th a t a c o n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n in stru c tio n is o n lyp ro p e r if c o n tra b a n d is f

o u n d in th e d e f e n d a n t’ s b e d ro o m . In a d d it ion to the fo reg o ing , M r. Jim en ez raises tw o arg u m en ts r eg ard ing Ju ry I ns truct i on 17 fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al . H e ar gues thatthe i ns t ruct i on ( 1) m i s s t at ed the l aw of cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on beca us e i ts ai d t hatthe G overnm entneed notpr ove that the def endanthad the i nt ent i on t o exer ci s e domi ni on and contr ol overthe pr ohi bi t ed o b jec t, an d (2 ) lo w e re d th e G o v e rn m e n t’s b u rd e n o f p ro o f f ro m “ b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt ” t o r equi r e thatt he governm entpr ove onl ya “pl aus i bl e i nfer ence ” thatthe defe nd ant had k no w l edg e of a nd access t o the prohibi t ed o bject s. B ecause these obj ect i ons w er e made fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al , w e r evi ew them onl yforpl ai n err orand fi nd thatther e w as none. O n pl ai n- err orr evi ew w e w i l l r ever s e the j udgm entbel ow onl yi f “ther e i s ( 1) e rro r, (2 ) th a t is p lain , w h ich (3 ) a f f e c ts s u b sta n tial rig h ts, a n d w h ich (4 ) se rio u slya f f e c ts the fa i rnes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 4 0 3 F .3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (e n b a n c ). A n e rro r is “ p lain ” if it i s “cl earorobvi ous att he t i m e of a ppeal . ” Id . at732. T o es t abl i s h t hata pl ai n err or a f f e c ted th e d e f

e n d a n t’s s u b sta n tial rig h ts, th e d e f e n d a n t m u st s h o w a “ re a so n a b le pr obabi l i tyt hat , butfort he err orcl ai m ed, the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en- 19 -

di ffe r ent . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D om i nguezB eni t ez , 542 U . S. 74, 75 ( 2004) ( al t er at i on and q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T h e d e f e n d a n t b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f m a k in g th is s h o w in g . U ni t ed Stat es v. V

onn , 5 3 5 U .S . 5 5 , 6 2

– 6 3 (2 0 0 2 ). Fi r s t , M r . J i m enez ar gues t hatt o pr ove cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on, the G overnm ent m us tes t abl i s h t hatt he def endanti nt ended t o exer ci s e domi ni on and contr ol overthe i l l egal obj ect . T her efor e, acc or di ng t o M r . J i m enez , beca us e J uryI ns t ruct i on 17 pr ovi ded th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t n e e d n o t m a k e su c h a sh o w in g , itw a s g iv e n in e rro r. W e sq u a re ly r ej ect ed thi s ar gum enti n C ol onna , w h ere w e h eld th at i n a join t occ u p an cysitu ati o n , “[ i] t is n o t n e c e ss a ryto sh o w th a t th e d e f e n d a n t in ten d e d to e x e rc ise th a t d o m in io n o r c o n tro l, n o r i s itn ec essa ryto sh o w that the d ef en d an t actua ll yo w n ed the w ea p o n s— m ere p o s s e s s io n is e n o u g h .” 3 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 9 . N ev erthe less, M r. Jim en ez p o ints ou t th at Ju ryInstruc ti o n 1 6 co n tr ad ict ed Ju ry In s tru c tio n 1 7 o n th is p o in t. T h e f o rm e r i n s tru c tio n p ro v id e d th a t, “ [ a ] p e rs o n w h o . . . know i ngl yhas bot h t he pow erand the i nt ent i on . . . to ex erc ise d o m inion o r co n tr o l ov er a thi ng . . . i s t hen i n cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of i t . ” ( emphasi s added) . T he conf l i ct i ng sta tem e n ts, M r. Jim e n e z a rg u e s, c o n f u se d th e ju ry . A lth o u g h w e q u e stio n w h e th e r th is i ns truct i on w as gi ven i n err or , anyconfus i on on t he partof the j ur or s w oul d onl yhave w ei ghed i n favorof M r . J i m enez beca us e i tw oul d have c aus ed the j ur or s t o bel i eve they cou l d n ot convictun l ess the G ov ernm ent had est abli shed M r. Ji m enez’s i ntentt o ex erci se dom i ni on and contr ol overt he fi r earm s . M r . J i m enez has ther efor e fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h that h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w e re a f f e c te d b ya n e rr o r i n th e in s tru c tio n s . See U ni t ed Stat es v.- 20 -

A r l i ngt on , 3 0 9 F . 3 d 4 0 , 4 8 (D . C . C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (an erro r i n the ju ryinstruction s tha t fav o rs th e d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t a f

f e c t s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts ). M r . J i m enez al s o ar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our ti m perm i s s i bl yl es s ened the G overnm ent ’ s bur den t o pr ove hi s gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubtbyi ncl udi ng the

“ p lau sib le in f

e re n c e ” lan g u a g e in Ju ryIn stru c tio n 1 7 . Ju ryIn stru c tio n 1 7 sta tes , in p a rt, that“[i ] n or dert o s us t ai n a convi ct i on bas ed upon cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on, the governm entm us tpr es entevi dence s uppor t i ng atl eas ta plaus i bl e i nf er ence t hatthe d e f e n d a n t h a d k n o w le d g e o f a n d a c c e s s to th e w e a p o n o r c o n tr a b a n d .” (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). W e agr ee w i t h M r . J i m enez t hatthi s i ns t ruct i on w as gi ven i n err or . A s not ed above, the i ns t ruct i on w as bas ed on l anguage t aken f r om thi s C our t ’ s opi ni on i n C ol onna . In th at ca se, ho w ev er, w e w ere n o t r ev iew ing the p rop ri etyo f a juryinstruction . R athe r, w e w ere rev iew ing w h ethe r th ere w as su ff ici en t evid en ce to su p p o rtthe d ef en d an t’ s c o n v ic tio n f

o r c o n s tru c tiv e p o s s e s s io n . See Col onna , 3 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 8 . “E v id e n c e is s u f f ic ie n t if , v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d have f ound t he def

endantgui l t ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. R ocke

y , 449 F. 3d 1099, 1103 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . W e w i l l s us t ai n a convi ct i on undert hi s s t andar d s o l ong as the governm enthas pr es ent ed “e vi dence supp ort i ng atl easta plausi ble i nference thatthe d efen dan thad kn ow l edg e of a nd access t o the w eapon. ” C ol onna , 3 6 0 F. 3 d a t1 1 7 9 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . To im p o rtthis st an d ard into a juryinstruction run s the ri sk o f re d u cing the g o v ern m en t’ s b u rde n to p rov e c o n stru cti v e p o sses sion b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t byall o w ing the ju ry- 21 -

t o convi ctonl yi f ther e i s a “pl aus i bl e i nfer ence ” of c ons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on. W e furt her c o n c lu d e th a t th is e rr o r w a s p la in . C ol onna u n am b igu o u slyap p li es a n ap p ell ate stan d ard to re v iew th e d e f

e n d a n t’s s u f

f icie n c y -o f

-th e -e v id e n c e c laim ; su c h a sta n d a rd o f re v iew is n o t a p p ro p ri a te la n g u a g e in a ju ry in s tru c tio n . N evert hel es s , w e conc l ude thatr ever s al i s i nappr opr i at e bec aus e the err ordi d not aff ectM r . J i m enez ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , as r equi r ed bythe thi r d pr ong of pl ai n- err or r evi ew . J ur yi ns t ruct i ons ar e pr ej udi ci al i f theyr ai s e a s ubs t ant i al doubtthatthe j uryw as f a ir ly g u id e d . U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ai l ey , 327 F. 3d 1131, 1143 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . A s not ed a b o v e , w e re v iew ju ryin stru c tio n s a s a w h o le to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e ya c c u ra tely in f o rm e d th e ju ry o f

th e g o v e rn in g la w . D o w lin , 4 0 8 F . 3 d at 66 4 . O v era ll , the ju ry i ns truct i ons adequa t el ydi r ect ed the j uryt o t he appl i cabl e bur den of pr oof. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rtinf o rm ed the ju ryin n ine s ep ara te j u ryinstruction s tha t t o co n v ict , itm u st find M r. J i m enez gui l t y“bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” J uryI ns t ruct i ons 13, 14 and 18, for exampl e, i ns t ruct ed the j ur or s t hat , t o fi nd M r . J i m enez gui l t y , theym us tfi nd thatthe G overnm entpr oved ea ch el ementof the cha r ge, i ncl udi ng the el ementof pos s es s i on, bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . J ur yI ns t ruct i on 16 pr ovi ded thatthe j ur or s m ayfi nd the el ementof pos s es s i on “i f y ou fi nd bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endanthad ac tual o r co n stru cti v e p o sses sion . ” Ju ryInstruc ti o n 1 8 also p rov ided that “[ m ]ere pr es ence of the def

endantar ound t he fi r earm s oramm uni t i on i s notenough t o fi nd the defe ndantgui l t yof the s ubs t ant i ve off ens e. ” Taken as a w hol e, w e have no s ubs t ant i al d o u b ts th a t th e ju ry w a s f a ir ly g u id e d b yth e ju ry in s tru c tio n s . S e e D o w lin , 408 F. 3d at- 22 -

6 6 6

– 6 7 (ho lding n o p lai n erro r w h ere d ef en d an t argu ed lang u ag e low ere d g o v ern m en t’ s bur den of pr oof, buti ns t ruct i ons over al l adequa t el ydi r ect ed j uryt o t he bey ond a rea so n ab le do u b t st an d ard ). I I I . CO NC L US I ON F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we AFF I RM . ENTERED FOR TH E CO UR T,

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge