T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s ; nevert hel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### N ove m b e r29,2006 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, N o. 05- 3104 v . (D . K a n .) KE NNE T H WAT E RB UR Y,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. NO . 0 3 - CR- 2 0 0 5 1 - 0 2 - J W L)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re M c CO NNELL , BA LD OCK , and TY M KOVI CH , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

K e n n e th W a ter b u rya p p e a ls h is ju ryc o n v ictio n s a risin g f ro m h is p a rt ic ip a tio n in a K a n s a s C ity, K a n s a s m e th a m p h e ta m in e d is tr ib u tio n ri n g . W at erbur yw as convi ct ed on thr ee c ount s : ( 1) cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e more t han 500 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2 and 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( vi i i ) and 846; ( 2) pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e fi ve or m or e gr ams of met hamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2 and 21 U . S. C . §§ 8 4 1 (a)(1) a n d 8 4 2 (b)(1 )(B )(vii i) ; and (3) b eing a felon in p o sses sion o f a firearm-2-

in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § § 9 2 2 (g) a n d 9 2 4 (a)(2). O n ap p ea l he a rgu es th at (1) a gun, drugs , and curr encys ei zed a thi s arr es ts houl d have be en s uppr es s ed under th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, an d (2 ) in a n ye v e n t, th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a g a in st h im a t tr ia l w a s in s u ffic ie n t to s u p p o rt h is th re e c o n v ic tio n s . W e di s agr ee fort he r eas ons di s cus s ed bel ow and A FFIRM the di s tr i ct c o u rt . I . Backg r ound O n A pr i l 11, 2004, K ans as C i typol i ce e xecut ed a s ear ch w arr anton an apart m entl ocat ed at1124 H i l l t op i n w es tK ans as C i ty , K ans as . T he apa r t m ent w as r ent ed t o C ar l R i eger , a fr i end of Car l os Por t i l l o- Q ueza da, and pol i ce s us pect ed i tas a “s t or efr ont ” form ethamphet ami ne di s tr i but i on. Pol i ce be l i eved Por t i l l o- Q ueza da t o be the r i ng- l eade rof a l ar ge s cal e met hamphet ami ne di s t r i but i on r i ng, and w er e al s o i nves t i gat i ng hi m i n connec t i on w i th the r ece nt m u rde r of

B ruc e A n d rew s, w h o se b o d yh ad b ee n d isco v ere d sev era l day s b efo re th e s e a rc h . P o lice e x e c u ted th e w a rra n t at 5 :4 5 a .m . E v e n th o u g h a u th o riz e d to conducta no- knock r ai d, pol i ce offi cer s i nvol ved i n the w arr ant ’ s exec ut i on i dent i fi ed themsel ves befor e for ci bl yent er i ng the apa r t m ent . O ffi cerC hr i s t opher M c A lis te r w a s fir s t in to th e a p a rt m e n t, h e w a s fo llo w e d b yO ffic e r C h ri s J o h n s o n . A l m os ti m m edi at el yupon entr y , M cA l i s t erencount er ed thr ee pe opl e i n a fr ont l i v i n g r o o m, i n c l u d i n g W a t e rb u r ya n d t wo wo me n . To s e c u r e t h e r o o m,-3-

M cA l i s t eror der ed al l t hr ee t o l i e fa ce- dow n on the fl oor . Pr i ort o or der i ng W at erbur yand hi s compani ons t o l i e dow n, M cA l i s t erobs erved the fl oort o be cl earof obj ect s . A ft ert he s us pect s w er e on the fl oor , M cA l i s t erobs erved W at erbur y ’ s r i ghthand nextt o hi s r i ghtl eg, and not i ced hi m engagi ng i n fur t i ve m o v e m e n ts. A f

ter re p e a ted lyo rd e rin g W a ter b u ryto b rin g h is h a n d a w a yf ro m h is l eg and pl ace i ton t he fl oorabove hi s head, M cA l i s t ernot i ced a . 380 cal i ber handgun nextt o W at erbur y ’ s r i ghtl eg, w her e hi s hand had be en. W hen the r oom w as s ecur e, M cA l i s t erpl ace d W at erburyunderarr es tfori l l egal l ypos s es s i ng a conce al ed w eapon. W at erbur yw as s ear ched i nci dentt o hi s arr es tbyJ ohns on. J ohns on found t hr ee pa ckage s of m ethamphet ami ne and $452 i n curr encyon W at erbury . O f the curr encys ei zed, $30 w as i n m arked governm entbi l l s w hi ch had be en us ed i n a drug t r ans act i on betw een Por t i l l o- Q ueza da and a n under coverK ans as C i typol i ce o ffic e r s ix h o u rs e a rl ie r. A fter h is arrest, W aterb u ryw as p lace d in the b ac k sea t of O fficer G ary W ans l ey ’ s patr ol car . W ans l eyt es t i fi ed thatW at erburyw as the onl ypas s engerhe t ransport ed thatm orni ng and t hat he pl aced W at erburyi nto the p at rol car j ust aft ercompl et i ng an i nt er i orand ext er i orchec k of the vehi cl e. W ans l eyl at er di s cover ed s even r ounds of . 380 cal i beramm uni t i on i n the cr evi ce of the s eat w her e W at erbur yhad bee n s eat ed. W ans l eyfur thert es t i fi ed thatno one other-4-

t han hi m s el f and W at erbur yhad ac ces s t o the r ears eatof hi s patr ol carfr om the tim e h e in s p e c te d it u n til h is d is c o v e ry o f th e b u lle ts . Pr i ort o t r i al , W at erbur ym oved t o s uppr es s the gun, m ethamphet ami ne and curr ency . T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed the mot i on, fi ndi ng thatM cA l i s t erhad pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tW at erburyforcarry i ng a conc eal ed w eapon, and thatt he s e a rc h w a s v a lid in c id e n t to th e a rr e s t. W at erbur yw as t r i ed al ongs i de tw o co- defe ndant s : Por t i l l o- Q ueza da and N oe E spi no . A tt ri al , t he g ov ernm ent pr esent ed tes t i m on ybyseveral w i tnesses, in c lu d in g R ieg e r, w h o m p ro se c u to rs c o n ten d e d w a s P o rtill o -Q u e z a d a ’s r ig h thand- m an i n t he di s t r i but i on r i ng. R i egert es t i fi ed thathe w oul d oft en del i ver m ethamphet ami ne forPor t i l l o- Q ueza da, and thatW at erburyw oul d s om et i m es d eli v er the d rug s w h en R iege r w as u n av ail ab le. R iege r claim ed that W aterb u ry w as pr es entform anydrug t r ans act i ons atthe 1124 H i l l t op apart m entand hel ped c u sto m e rs o f

P o rtill o -Q u e z a d a “ sa m p le” m e th a m p h e tam in e b ysm o k in g it w ith t h e m a n d p o s s i b l y b y “ l o a d i n g u p ” p i p e s fo rth e m . V o l . I V a t5 1 - 5 4 . F i n a l l y, R i egert es t i fi ed thathe had s een W at erbury“s how i ng off” a . 380 cal i berhandgun j us tbefor e the pol i ce r ai d. I d. at66. T he gun, thr ee pa cket s of m et ham ph et am i ne, and t he m arked cu rr encyw ere al l i ntr od uced against W a ter b u rya t trial. II . A n a ly sis A . P rob ab l e C au se t o A rrest-5-

W a ter b u ryfirst a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d w h e n it ref u se d to s uppr es s t he gun, m ethamphet ami ne, and mar ked curr encyfound w hen he w as s ear ched i nci dentt o hi s arr es t . Speci fi cal l y , W at erburym ai nt ai ns thatM cA l i s t er di d nothave pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es thi m forunl aw ful pos s es s i on of a c oncea l ed fi r earm fort w o unr el at ed r eas ons : ( 1) M cA l i s t ercoul d notbe ce r t ai n the . 380 c a lib e r h a n d g u n b e lo n g e d to W a ter b u ry , an d (2 ) e v e n if th e g u n w a s lin k e d to W at erbur y , M cA l i s t ercoul d notknow atthe t i m e of a rr es tw hetherhe had a la w f u l r e a s o n to p o s s e s s a c o n c e a le d w e a p o n u n d e r K a n s a s la w . W e re v iew d e n o v o w h e th e r a n a rre st is in v io latio n o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. Un itedS ta tes v . Hill , 1 9 9 F . 3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). In con du ct i ng t his revi ew , w e accep tt he d i stri ctcou rt ’s fi nd i ng s of fact unl ess c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . Id. A n offi cerhas pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es ti f, undert he t ot al i tyof the c irc u m sta n c e s, h e “ lea rn e d o f fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s th ro u g h re a so n a b ly t rus t w or t hyi nform at i on t hatw oul d l ead a r eas onabl e per s on t o bel i eve thatan offe ns e has been ori s bei ng comm i t t ed byt he per s on arr es t ed. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mo rr is , 247 F. 3d 1080, 1088 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . T he rul es governi ng pr obabl e ca us e “‘ ar e nott echni cal ; t heyar e the fa ctual and pr act i cal cons i der at i ons of eve r y dayl i fe on w hi ch r eas onabl e and prudentm en, n o t le g a l te c h n ic ia n s ’” m u s t a c t. Il l i nois v. G at es , 462 U . S. 213, 231 ( 1983) ( quot i ng B r i negarv. Uni t ed Stat es , 3 3 8 U .S . 1 6 0 , 1 7 5 (1 9 4 9 )). P ro b a b le c a u se is-6-

i t s el f a “ fl ui d conce pt ” and the pr oces s of det erm i ni ng i t s exi s t ence does notdeal w i t h har d cert ai nt i es , butw i t h “pr obabi l i t i es . ” Ma ry la n dv . P rin g le , 54 0 U. S. 3 6 6 , 3 7 1 (2 0 0 3 ); accord G at es , 46 2 U . S . at23 1. T hat s ai d, probab l e cause r equi r es s om ethi ng “more t han mer e s us pi ci on. ” Mo rr is , 2 4 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 8 8 . I n deny i ng W at erbur y ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , the di s tr i ctcourtfound that M cA l i s t erand J ohns on had t es t i fi ed “e xtr emel ycr edi bl y ” atthe s uppr es s i on h ea ri n g reg ard ing their en co u n ter w ith W aterb u ry . A p p . A p . at 82

– 8 3 . T h e c o u rt found thatupon ent er i ng t he apa r t m ent , the off i cer s s aw the l i vi ng r oom fl oor c lea r o f w e a p o n s b e fo re o rd e rin g W a ter b u rya n d h is tw o fe m a le c o m p a n io n s to t he gr ound. O nl yaft eror der i ng W at erburyt o m ove hi s hands aw ayfr om hi s r i ght s i de di d t he pol i ce di s covert he gun. T he di s tr i ctcour tconcl uded: [A ]tt hat ju n c ture [the o ffi cers ] cert ai nlyhad probab l e cause to arres t M r . W at erb u ry fo r h a v in g a c o n c e al ed w eapo n, w hetheri f t hat case everw entt o t r i al t he governm ent w o u ld su st ai n i t s bur den of pr oof b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b to r n o t , w h o k n o w s ? B u tc e r t a i n l y [ th e y] h ad p rob ab le c a u s e to b eli ev e tha t a w ea p o n w h ich h ad n o t bee n there pr evi ous l y , had notbeen i n M r . W at erbury ’ s hands or on the fl oorand su d d en lyap p ea red o n the flo o r n ex t to h im , h ad b ee n co n ce aled b yM r. W a t e rb u r y. Id . B ased on t he o bject i ve fa ct s, the p oli ce had probab l e cause to arres t W at erbur y . W at erbur yfi r s tcl ai m s thatM cA l i s t ercoul d nothave be en ce r t ai n t he g u n h a d b e e n c o n c e a led b yW a ter b u ry , p o in tin g to a lleg e d in c o n sis ten c ies in M cA l i s t er ’ s t es t i m ony . I n part i cul ar , W at erburyci t es t o M cA l i s t er ’ s admi s s i on-7-

t hathe w as notcompl et el ys ur e w her e the gun ca m e fr om beca us e he ne vers aw W a ter b u ryre m o v e th e g u n f ro m h is p o c k e t. H o w e v e r, M c A lister ’s te stim o n yis cons i s t entw i t h t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ng thatboth M cA l i s t erand J ohns on s aw t he emptyfl oornearW at erburypr i ort o W at erbury ’ s fur t i ve m ovement s and then s aw a handgun a thi s r i ghts i de. A r eas onabl e pol i ce offi cer c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e g u n w a s W a ter b u ry ’s a n d th a t h e h a d re m o v e d it fro m h is cloth ing just prior to the o fficer d isco v ering it . W e c an n o t saythe d istri ct co u rt ’s evaluat i on of thi s t est i m on yw as cl earl yerr on eou s. W at erbur yal s o cl ai m s on appea l thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n concl udi ng he vi ol at ed K ans as ’ s conce al ed w eapons s t atut e. K ans as l aw pr ohi bi t s carry i ng a c o n c e a le d w e a p o n a n yw h e re o th e r t h a n o n o n e ’s o w n p ro p e rt yw ith o u t a p e rm it. K . S. A . 21- 4201( a) ( 4) . W at erbur ycl ai m s the off i cer s w ho r ai ded the apa r t m ent c o u ld n o t b e c e rta in th a t W a terb u ryw a s n o t th e o w n e r o r le ss e e o f th e a p a rtm e n t, an d there fo re en ti tl ed to co n ce al a w ea p o n . T h is argu m en t w as n o t r aised b efo re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a n d w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s it. United S tates v. Moo re , 22 F. 3d 2 4 1 , 2 4 3 n .3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). I t is , h o w e v e r, e a s ily d is p o s e d . T he pol i ce kne w t he apa r t m entw as r ent ed byR i egerand us ed byPor t i l l oQ ueza da. T he off

i cer s conduct i ng the r ai d w oul d have be en abl e t o i dent i fy Por t i l l o- Q ueza da and Ri eger , and ce r t ai nl yt o know t hem from W at erbury . E ven i f M cA l i s t erhi m s el f di d notknow W at erburybys i ghtatt he t i m e of the r ai d, t he offi cer s conduct i ng t he s ear ch had s uffi ci entfac t s t o know t hatR i eger , and notW e al s o agr ee w i t h t he di s tr i ctcourtt hat , even i f the pol i ce l acke d 1 pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tW at erburyupon di s coveryof the gun, t heyhad s uffi ci ent r eas on t o conducta patdow n s ear ch of W at erburyand ther ebyw oul d have in e v ita b ly d is c o v e re d th e d ru g s a n d m o n e y . Uni t ed Stat es v. Mi kuls ki , 317 F. 3d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 4

– 3 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). -8- W at erbur y , r ent ed the apa r t m ent . C ol l ect i vel y , the off i cer s conduct i ng the s ear ch t hus knew t hatW at erbur yw as notent i t l ed t o carrya conc eal ed w eapon on the prem i ses. O u r c a se s a ttribu te th is c o llec tiv e k n o w led g e to th e a rre stin g o ffice r in m a k in g a d e te rm in a tio n w h e th e r p ro b a b le c a u s e e x is te d to s u p p o rt th e a rr e s t. Un itedS ta tes v . G o e ltz , 5 1 3 F .2 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 7 5 ); s ee als o Uni t ed S ta tes v . Me rr itt , 695 F. 2d 1263, 1268 ( 10th C i r . 1982) ( appl y i ng G oeltz p rin c ip le t o det erm i nat i on of r eas onabl e s us pi ci on i n Terry -sto p c o n tex t); Uni t ed Stat es v. Mi r am ont ed , 365 F. 3d 902, 905 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( appl y i ng rul e of Me rr ittto w arran tl ess a rrest) . 1 A c c o rd in g ly , the d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied W a ter b u ry ’s m o tio n to s uppr es s t he evi dence s ei zed a s a r es ul tof the s ear ch. B . Suffi ci ency of t he E vi dence W aterb u ry ’s sec o n d arg u m en t i s tha t eve n if th e it em s fro m the s ea rch w ere admi s s i bl e, t he evi dence att r i al w as s t i l l i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he thr ee c o n v ic tio n s . W e re v ie w th e s u ffic ie n c yo f e v id e n c e d e n o v o , Uni t ed Stat es v. Wis em an , 172 F. 3d 1196, 1212 ( 10th C i r . 1999) , and w i l l uphol d a convi ct i on i f, o n t h e b a s i s o f

t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o g e th e rwi th r e a s o n a b l e i n fe r e n c e s d r a wn fr om i t , a r at i onal j ur orcoul d have found the es s ent i al el ement s of the cha r ged-9-

c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Uni t ed Stat es v. N guyen , 413 F. 3d 1170, 1176 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . I n conduct i ng thi s r evi ew , w e cons i derthe evi dence i n the l i ght m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t. Id . 1. C ons pi r ac y t o Pos s e s s and Di s t r i but e M e t hamphet ami ne In order t o g ai n a co nv i ct i on un der 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 , t he g ov ernm ent m ust p ro v e fo u r e le m e n ts : ( 1 ) a n a g re e m e n t w ith a n o th e r p e rs o n to v io la te th e la w , ( 2) know l edge of

t he es s ent i al obj ect i ves of the cons pi r acy , ( 3) know i ng and vol unt aryi nvol vementi n t he cons pi r acy , and ( 4) i nt er depende nce a m ong the a lle g e d p a rt ic ip a n ts in th e c o n s p ir a c y . Uni t ed Stat es v. D elgado- Ur i be , 363 F. 3d 1077, 1083 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . “[K ] now l edge [ of i l l egal act i vi ty ] and pr es ence [at t he cr i m e s cene ] coupl ed w i t h know i ng par t i ci pat i on i n the i l l egal drug act i vi t i es ar e s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n a drug cons pi r acy[convi ct i on] . ” Un itedS ta tes v . C oy o te , 9 6 3 F .2 d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); N guyen , 4 1 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 7 . W at erbur ym ai nt ai ns t hatthe governm entfai l ed t o pr es entevi dence p r o v i n g h i s k n o wi n g a n d v o l u n t a ryi n v o l v e me n ti n t h e d ru g c o n s p i r a c y . He cont ends t he governm ents how ed thatal though he w as an ac quai nt ance of Por t i l l o- Q ueza da, he w oul d onl yocca s i onal l yfi x Por t i l l o- Q ueza da’ s vehi cl es , or “hang out ” att he 1124 H i l l t op apart m ent . A pp. B r . at16- 17. T hi s evi dence , he cl ai m s , i s l egal l yi ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tan i nfer ence t hathe w as an ac t i ve m e m b e r o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y .-10-

T hi s ar gum enti s atodds w i th the r ecor d. A ttr i al , the governm ent p re se n ted e x ten siv e e v id e n c e th a t W a ter b u ryk n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ily par t i ci pat ed i n t he cons pi r acy . Pat r i ck Loffr edo, a fr equentpur chas erof drugs fr om t he r i ng, t es t i fi ed thathe s aw W at erburyatthe apa r t m entw hi l e buy i ng drugs and had s een W at erbur yhel p cus t om er s s ampl e met hamphet ami ne fors al e by p a c k in g th e ir p ip e s a n d sm o k in g w ith th e m . R ieg e r w a s a n a c tiv e p a rticip a n t in t he cons pi r acy . H e t es t i fi ed thatW at erburyw oul d del i verm ethamphet ami ne w hen R i egerw as unavai l abl e. I n addi t i on, acc or di ng t o R i eger , m ember s of the d ru g c o n sp ira c yu se d W a ter b u ry ’s r e sid e n c e fo r m e th a m p h e tam in e sa les w ith W a ter b u ry ’s c o n se n t. F in a lly , a ja ilh o u se lette r w ritten b yW a ter b u rya n d se n t to a fr i end di s cl os ed thathe l os tover$9000 t he ni ghtof the r ai d, and s uppor t ed an i nfer ence he w as act i ve i n w hathe des cr i bed as “the game, ” namel ythe drug cons pi r acy . Supp. V ol . I V at58. V i ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the j ury ’ s gui l tyver di ct , the evi dence w as m or e than s uffi ci entt o al l ow a r at i onal j ur ort o convi ctW at erburyof c o n s p ir a c y . 2. Pos s e s s i on w i t h I nt e nt t o Di s t r i but e M e t hamphet ami ne Poss es s i on w i t h t he i nt entt o di s tr i but e i s demonstr at ed byevi dence t hatt he d e fe n d a n t k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s e d a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e a n d in te n d e d to s e ll it. Uni t ed Stat es v. Jenk i ns , 1 7 5 F .3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 5

– 1 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). In ten t to di s t r i but e ca n be i nferr ed fr om a numberof fa ct or s acc om pany i ng pos s es s i on,-11-

i ncl udi ng ( 1) t he quant i t y , pur i t y , and val ue of the drugs pos s es s ed; ( 2) the m anneri n w hi ch the drugs ar e pac kaged; ( 3) the pr es ence of fi r earm s ( as comm on to o ls o f th e tr a d e ); a n d (4 ) t h e p re s e n c e o f la rg e s u m s o f

m o n e y . Uni t ed Stat es v. A l l en , 2 3 5 F .3 d 4 8 2 , 4 9 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi ls on , 107 F. 3d 774, 7 7 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Wood , 5 7 F . 3 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 8

– 1 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). O n a p p e a l, W a ter b u rya ss e rts: T h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e i n s t a n tm a t t e re s t a b l i s h e s o n l y th a tM r . W a t e rb u ry, w h e n se a rc h e d [ ,] h a d th re e sm a ll q u a n tit ies o f m e th a m p h e tam in e o n h is p erso n . H e d id n o t p o sses s large am o u n t of ca sh an d n o w ea p o n s w ere fo u n d o n h im . T h ere w as a lso n o p ac k ag ing m aterial fo u n d o n M r. W a t e rb u r y. A pp. B r . at18. T hi s cl ai m i s contr adi ct ed bythe r ecor d. T he met hamphet ami ne d isc o v e re d o n W a terb u ryto tale d 3 7 .2 7 g ra m s, a n a m o u n t co n sis ten t w ith d istrib u tio n q u a n tit ies . T h e m e th a m p h e tam in e w a s h ig h q u a litya n d in d iv id u a lly p a c k a g e d in s m a ll p la s tic b a g s , a ls o c o n s is te n t w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te . W at erbur yhad $452 i n cas h, i ncl udi ng $30 of the pr e- m arked governm entfunds u sed in the co n tr o ll ed b u yfro m P o rt il lo-Q u ez ad a six h o u rs prior to W aterb u ry ’s arr es t . W at erbur ycarr i ed a c oncea l ed w eapon w hen conf r ont ed bythe pol i ce a t t he r ai d. H i s j ai l hous e l et t eri ndi cat ed he ha d l os t$9000 as a r es ul tof the r ai d, further bols t eri ng t he p rosecut i on ’s argum ent that he di stri bu t ed d rugs. V iew e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ict, a ra tio n a l ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t W a te rb u ry in te n d e d to s e ll th e d ru g s fo u n d a t th e ra id .-12-

3. F el on In Poss es s i on Fi n a l l y , a mpl e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n c o n v i c t i o n . To p r o v e t h a ta fe l o n i l l e g a l l yp o s s e s s e d a fi r e a r m i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 922( g) ( 1) , t he governm entm us ts how ei ther( 1) actual , know i ng pos s es s i on of a fi r e a r m, o r( 2 ) c o n s t ru c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f a fi r e a r m. Uni t ed Stat es v. Lauder , 409 F. 3d 1254, 1259 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . W at erburyar gues t he evi dence does not es t abl i s h he ac tual l ypos s es s ed the handgun found nearhi m att he r ai d, and any e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g c o n s t ru c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n i s s p e c u l a t i v e a n d i n c o n s i s t e n t . We di s agr ee. T h e g o v ern m en t prese n ted e v iden ce o f a ctua l po sses sion thro u g h R iege r’s test im o n ythat the s eize d . 3 8 0 ca li b er h an d g u n clos elyrese m b led a firearm W a ter b u ryw a s “ sh o w in g o ff” a t th e a p a rtm e n t b e fo re th e p o lice ra id . (S u p p . V o l. I V at64–66. ) Fur t her , M cA l i s t er ’ s t es t i m onyt hatt he gun w as found nea r W at erbur y ’ s s i de af

t erhe moved hi s r i ghthand s uppor t s t he i nfer ence t hat W at erbur ydi s car ded the w eapon w hen he be l i eved he w oul d be s ear ched a nd coul d no l ongerconce al i t . T hes e fa ct s , w hen combi ned w i th the s even . 380 c a l i b e rb u l l e t s fo u n d i n t h e b a c k s e a to f t h e p a tr o l c a rt r a n s p o r t i n g W a t e rb u ry, ampl ys uppor tt he i nfer ence t hatW at erburypos s es s ed and di r ect l ycontr ol l ed a .3 8 0 c a lib e r h a n d g u n a t th e 1 1 2 4 H ill to p a p a rtm e n t. V i ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the j ury ’ s ver di ct , t he evi dence p re s e n te d s u p p o rt s W a te rb u ry’s c o n v ic tio n o n a th e o ry o f a c tu a l p o s s e s s io n .-13- I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yadmi t t ed ev iden ce fo u n d incid en t t o W aterb u ry ’s arrest. W e a lso find that a ra ti o n al j u ry c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e su b m itt e d a t trial w a s s u fficie n t to su p p o rt h is t h r e e c o n v i c t i o n s . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we AFF I RM . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge