IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-51293

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAVIER IBARRA CARRANZA, also known as Javier Ibarra,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:12-CR-184-2

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Javier Ibarra Carranza of conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 841 

and 846), possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of 

marijuana (§ 841), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking 

crime (18 U.S.C.§ 924(c)(1)(A)), and aiding and abetting the possession of a 

firearm by an illegal alien (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924(a) and 2). On appeal, 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-51293 RESTRICTED Document: 00512472739 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
No. 12-51293

Ibarra challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the two firearms counts, 

arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show that he possessed a firearm.

Evidence will be deemed sufficient if any rational trier of fact could have 

found that it established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,

443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979). Although Ibarra moved for a judgment of acquittal 

after the Government rested, he failed to renew the motion at the close of all 

evidence. Accordingly, his sufficiency claim is reviewed for plain error. See 

United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 330-32 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied

133 S. Ct. 525 (2012). In the context of a sufficiency challenge, to establish

plain error, the defendant “must demonstrate not just that the government’s 

evidence . . . was insufficient, but that it was obviously insufficient.” Id. at 331. 

We will find the requisite obviousness only if “the record is devoid of evidence 

pointing to guilt or if the evidence is so tenuous that a conviction is shocking.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Possession of a firearm may be actual or constructive and may be proven 

by circumstantial evidence. United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 496 (5th 

Cir. 1999). “Constructive possession need not be exclusive, it may be joint with 

others . . . .” United States v. McKnight, 953 F.2d 898, 901 (5th Cir. 1992). In 

joint occupancy cases, constructive possession of a firearm may be established 

by evidence that the defendant had access to and knowledge of the firearm. 

See United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 353 (5th Cir. 2009); see also 

United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200, 1212 (5th Cir. 1996).

In the instant case, detectives found a loaded assault rifle inside of a 

pillowcase on a bed in the living room and two loaded handguns underneath 

the same pillow. A rifle case, with a rifle inside, was found in one of the 

bedrooms. Several ammunition magazines and loose rounds were found in

plain view inside the house. There also was testimony that the house clearly 

2

 Case: 12-51293 RESTRICTED Document: 00512472739 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
No. 12-51293

appeared to be a “stash house,” with a large quantity of marijuana in plain 

view in one bedroom, and a smaller quantity of cocaine was in plain view in 

the living room. Witnesses also testified that drug traffickers are known to 

keep firearms near their drug supplies. Based on this evidence, we conclude 

that the record was not “devoid of evidence” that would allow a plausible 

inference that Ibarra had knowledge of and access to these firearms. See 

Delgado, 672 F.3d at 331 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); 

Fields, 72 F.3d at 1212. 

The record does reveal a clerical error in the judgment. The written 

judgment provides that, as to Count Three, Ibarra was convicted of “possession 

of a firearm during a drug transaction.” Count Three itself is somewhat 

unclear because it appears to conflate the use and carry and possession prongs 

of § 924(c)(1)(A). See United States v. McGilberry, 480 F.3d 326, 329 (5th Cir. 

2007). The judgment should be corrected to properly identify the offense of 

conviction on Count Three.

Therefore, Ibarra’s convictions are AFFIRMED. The matter is 

REMANDED for correction of the clerical error pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 36. 

3

 Case: 12-51293 RESTRICTED Document: 00512472739 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/17/2013