Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30168
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F AM E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. D A M IE N D A L L E N , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U S D C N o . 2 :08 -C R -1 9 7 -1
B e fo r e S T E W A R T , D E N N IS , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l antD am i e n D. Al l e n a ppe al s hi s c o nvic t i o n for p o s s e s s io n o f afir e a r m b yaco n v ic te dfe lo n u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). W e A F F I R M. I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS B E L OW “W e rec i te the fa c ts inthe l i gh t m ost fav ora b l e to th e v erd i ct. ” Un i t ed S ta tes v. O lis , 42 9 F. 3d 54 0, 54 1 n. 1 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5)
. Cor po r alJ am e s Ree d o f t he C a lc a s ie u P a r is h S h e r i f f’s O ffic e co n d u c te daro u tin e tr a ffic s to p o f av e h ic le United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30168

2 operati n g w i t h ou tfun ct i on i n g t ai l l i gh t s. A s R eed cam e to a stop on the road si de, h e il l u m i n ated t h e veh i cl e w i t h a f l oodl i gh tan d the h ead l i gh t s f rom hi s patr ol
car. From hi s posi t i on , R eed observedt w o indivi du al s i n t h e st opp ed car: A l l en a n da p a sse n ge r, l a ter i d en tifi edas R olan dJ a ck
. Im m ed i a tel y a ft er co m i n g to a s t op, A l l en e xi t ed h i s vehi c l e w hi l e w aivi ng hi s hands i n t he airand s t at i ng:

“ I a i n’ tg o tno t hi ng. Iai n’ tdi d nothi ng. ” Ree d or de r e d A l l e n t o ge tb ac k i nt o t he veh i cl e a n d t h en a pp roachedt h e driver’ s s i de d oor w h i l e keep i n g a cl ose eye on bot h oc c upants of t he vehi c l e. R ee d t es t i f i ed att r i alt hathe m ai nt ai ned vi sual
c o n ta c t w ith b o th in d iv id u a ls d u r in g th is e n tir e in te rv a l o u t of c o n c e r n fo rh is
s a fe ty . S econd s af

t er pulli n gA l l en over, R eed w as j oi n ed byt w o ot h er of f i cers , M ot tan d W i l cox, w h o ha d been t ravel i n g on t h e sam e road j u sta shortdi st an ce be hi nd Re e d; the y de c i de d t o p rovi de a s s i s t anc e a f t e rhe ar i ng Ree d r e po r tt he
s t o p o ve r t he r ad i o . W i l c o x t o o k up apo s i t i o n b e hi nd Re e d o n t he dr ive r ’ s s i de of A l l en ’ s vehi cl e. M ot t proceeded t o t h e pa ssenger si de of t h e veh i cl e t o w atc h Ja c k. Ac c o r di ng t o t he i rc o m bi ne d t e s t i m o ny, a tl e as to ne o f f i c e rw as w at c hi ng Ja c k a ta l lt i m e s dur i ng t he t r af f i cs t o p. A fter ord erin g A l l en ba cki n to the ve h i cl e, R ee d , n ow su p p orted byM ott and W i l c ox, be gan s peaki ng w i t h A l l en. Reed t esti fi ed t hatA l l en w as e x c e p tio n a llyn e rv o u s – m o r e s o th a n R e e d ty p ic a llyo b s e rv e dinin d iv id u a ls p u lle do v e rfo rtr a ffic v io la tio n s . R e e da s k e dA lle n if a n yille g a l ite m s w e r e in t h e veh i cl e an d A l l en sai d t h ere w ere n ot . R eed n ext soug h tA l l en ’ s perm i ssi on t o s ear c h t he vehi c l e bec ause h e had s m ell ed m ar ij uana as he appr oac hed t he c ar a n db e c a u s e o f A lle n ’ s e x c e s s iv e n e rv o u s n e s s . A lle n re fu s e dto co n s e n t. Ree d the n r e que s t e d aK

- 9 o f f i c e rbe di s pa t c he d t o c o nf i r m hi s s us pi c i o ns t h a tm a r ij u a n ao d o r s w e r e e m a n a t in gfr o m th e v e h ic le . B a s e do n th e d o g ’s pos i t ive r es ponse , t he o f f i c er s c ondu cted a se ar c h of A l l en’ s vehi c l e. N o dr ugs w e r e f o und butM o t tl o c at e d af i r e ar m i n t he ce nt e rc o ns o l e o f t he v e hi c l e . TheN o. 09- 30168

3 cons o l e w as l o c at e d b e t w e e n t he dr ive ra nd p as s e nge rs e at s i n t he f r o nto f t he veh i cl e an d could o n l y be access ed byw ay of a ha t ch on t h e t op of t h e consol e. T h e consol e w as cl osed at the t i m e off i cers con du ct ed t h e searc h bu tt h e f i rearm w as not c on ceal ed or cover ed w i t h i n t h e consol e. A l l en w as t h en pl aced u n der
ar r e s t . J ac k was al s o ad vi s e d o f hi s r i ght s and que s t i o ne d o n t he s c e ne buthe
w a s n ev er p l ac ed underar r es tby any of t he o f f i c er s. I nst ead, he agr ee d t o b e tr a n s p o r te dto th e p o lic e s ta tio n to p r o v id e av o lu n ta r ys ta te m e n t. U pon ar r ivi ng att he poli c e sta ti on, Jac k w as i nt ervi ew ed byLt
. R ay Lavi ol et of t he Lak e C harl es Pol i c e D epar t m ent . A c c or di ng t o t he t es t i m ony at t r i al , Lav i o l e ta s ke d J ac k wher e he w as g o i ng t hate ve ni ng, w he t he ro rno the
ow n ed th e firearm di scovered i n A l l en ’ s c ar, an d w h et h er he kn ew w h o ow n ed th e fir e a r m . J a c k ’ s a n s w e r s to th e s e q u e s tio n s w e r e n e v e r a d m itt e d a t tr ia l in
an y f orm . La vi ol ett h en t est i f i ed that, based on t h i s i n t erv iew , he n o l on ger bel i evedJack w as a suspect. Foll ow i n g h i s i n te rv iew w i t h Jack, L aviol et conti n u ed h i s i n vest i gati on i n t o the di scovery of the f i rearm . La vi ol etcondu ct ed
atit le s e a r c h a n dfo u n dth a t A lle n w a s th e s o le o w n e ro f th e v e h ic le
. A l l en w as s ubse quent l y i ndi c t ed w i t h pos se ss i on o f a f i r ear m by a c o nvi c t e d fe l o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 2 2 ( g) ( 1 )
. All e n p l e dn o tg u i l t ya nd
w as t ri ed befor e a j u ry. A tt ri al , A l l en st i pu l ated t h at: 1) he h adprevi ou sly been convic t ed of

a fel on y; 2) t h e f

i rearm di scovered i n hi s veh i cl e w as m an u fact u red i n C al i f orni a an d, t h u s, necessaril y tra vel ed i n i n t erst ate c om m erce t o reach Loui s i ana ; and 3) t he f i r e ar m w as f

ul l y o pe r ab l e at t he t i m e i tw as sei zed. Al l e n’ s de fe ns e f

o c us e d e xc l us ive l y o n whet he rhe ha d k no w i ngly po s s e s s e d the firea rm di scovered i n hi s vehi cl e. Th e t h rust of t h e defen se c ase i n volved
s u g g e s tin gJ a c kh a ds e c r e te dt h e f ir e a r m inco n s o le d u r in gth e tr a ffic s to p w h ile th e o ffi cers w ere oc cup i ed w i t h A l l en . A tt h e end of a t w o- da y t ri al , t h e j u ry r e t ur ne d ag ui l t y ve r di c t . Al l e n was s ubs equ en t l y s e nt e nc e d t o s e ve nt y- e i ghtN o. 09- 30168

4 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t a n dth r e e y e a r s s u p e rv is e dre le a s e . A lle n tim e ly ap pe al e d. I I . DI S CU S S I ON Al l e n a s s e r t s t w o c l ai m s o f e r r o ro n a ppe al
. Fi r s t , Al l e n c l ai m s t he
e v id e n c e p r e s e n te da t t r ia l w a s n o t s u ffic ie n t to e s ta b lis h t h a t h e co n s tr u c tiv e ly poss essed the f

i r e ar m di s c o ve r e d i n t he c e nt e rc o ns o l e o f hi s v e hi c l e . Se c o nd, A lle n cla im s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a d m itt e dim p e r m i s s ib le h e a r s a ye v id e n c e in vi o l at i o n o f

t he Conf

r o nt at i o n Cl aus e . W e a ddr e s s e ac h c l ai m e d e r r o ri n t ur n. A
. Suf f i ci ency of

t h e E vi d ence Al l e n f i r s tc l ai m s t hatt he G o ve r nm e ntfail e d t o pr o duc e l e ga l l y s uf f i c i e nt ev i d enc e t o per m i t hi s c onvi c t i on und er 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1)
. To c on vict a def endantunder § 922( g) ( 1) , t he G ove r nm ent m ust pro ve: 1) t he def endantw as a con victed fel on ; 2 ) th e defen d a n t p oss ess ed a firea rm i n or a ff ectingi n tersta te c o m m e r c e ; a n d3 ) th e d e fe n d a n t k n o w in g lyp o s s e s s e dth e fir e a r m . Un i t ed S t ate s v. F erguson , 211 F
. 3d 878 , 885 n. 4 ( 5th C i r. 200 0)
. A l l en st i pu l ated t o t h e f i rst ands e c o nd e l e m e nt s r e quir e d b y t h e sta t ut e , de nyi ng o nl y t he “kno w i ng p oss ess i on ” el em en t. W h e r e , a s h e r e , as u ffic ie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e a r g u m e n t is ra is e dinatim e ly
m o tio n fo rju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l, w e “e x a m in [e ] th e e v id e n c e a n da ll re a s o n a b le i n ferences draw n t h eref rom i n t h e l i gh tm ostfavorab l e t o t h e verdi ct , an d ask
w h e th e rara tio n a l tr ie ro f fa c t c o u ldh a v e fo u n dg u ilt b e y o n dare a s o n a b le d ou b t. ” Un itedS ta tes v. G a rc ia , 567 F
. 3d721 , 7 3 1 (5 t h C i r. 200 9)
. “ ‘ Iti s not
n ecess ary t h at th e evi den ce exclu de every reasona bl e h yp ot h esi s of i n n ocence or be w ho l l y i nc o ns i s t e ntw i t h e ve r y c o nc l us i o n e xc e ptt hato f g ui l t , pr o vi de d a
r e as o nab l e t r i e ro f

fac tc o ul d f

i nd thatt he e vi de nc e e st abli shes g ui l tb e yo nd a
rea son a b l e d ou b t. ’” Id
. ( quot i ng Un itedS ta tes v. B ell , 678 F
. 2d 547 , 549 ( 5th C i r. U n it B 1 9 8 2 ) (e n b a n c ) ) . “‘Aju r yis fr e e to ch o o s e a m o n gre a s o n a b le
con stru cti on s of th e ev i d en ce.’” Id
. ( quot i ng B ell , 6 7 8 F .2da t 5 4 9 ).N o. 09- 30168

5 “ ‘ C on st ructive possessi on ’[ of contr aba n d] i s ow n ershi p, dom i n i on , or c o nt r o lo ve rt he [ contraband] it s e l f, o rc o nt r o lo ve rthe pr e m i s e s i n whi c h t he [con trab a n d ] i s con cea l ed
. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hou st on , 364 F
. 3d243 , 248 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (c ita tio n s o m itt e d); seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. S peer , 3 0 F
. 3 d60 5 , 61 2 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( ap plyi ng s am e “ c o ns t r uc t ivepo s s e s s i o n” d ef i ni t i o n t o c o nt r ab and d is c o v e r e dinav e h ic le ); Un i t ed S ta tes v. Kn eze k , 964 F
. 2d394 , 400 ( 5th C i r. 199 2) (“ [ C ] on st ru ctiv e possess i on m ay als o be i n ferred f rom t h e exerci se of d o m in ion orco n tro l ov e r th e v e h icle inw h ich th e co n tra b a n dis fou n d .”)
. “A l th ou gh a d efen d a n t’ s ex cl u sive occ u p a n cyof aplace m a y e stab l i sh h is dom i n i on an d c on t rol over an i t em f ou n d th ere, h i s j oi n t occupa n cy of a p l ace ca n n ot, b y itself, su p p ort th e sa m e con cl u sion
. ” Hou st on , 36 4 F
. 3 dat 24 8
. “ In
cases of

j oi n tocc u pa n cy, l i ke the m att er sub j u d i ce , w e fi n d c ons t r uct ive po s s e s s i o no n lywhe r e t he r e i s e vi de nc e s upp o r t i ng a pl aus ibl e i nfe r e nc e t hatt he d efen d a n t ha d k n ow l ed ge of, a n d a cces s to, th e item . ” I d. (c i t i ngUn i t ed S t ate s v. Hi n oj osa , 3 4 9 F .3d 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 -0 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 )). Th e G ove r nm ent c ont ends t hat A l l en’ s dem eanor and ex c es sive n e rv o u s n e s s d u r in gth e s to p , co u p le dw ith h is e x c lu s iv e o w n e r s h ip o f th e v e h ic le andt he unl i ke l iho o d t hatJac k c o ul d ha vec o nc e al e d the w e ap o n wi t ho utb e i ng seen by the of

f i cers , provi de su f

f i ci en tevi den ce t o up h ol d the verdi ct . A l l en contend s t h at th e ev i den ce of b ot h h i s n ervousn ess an d h i s deci si on t o j u m p f rom t he c arpr oc l ai m i ng hi s i nnoce n ce w a s c ons i st entw i t h hi s c l ai m t hathe w as con cerned ab ou tbei n g cau gh tsm oking m arij u an a. H e al so argues t h at Jack
m i gh tha ve been t h e one to concealt h e gu n , despi t e t h e factJack w as w atc h ed by t he o f

f i c e r s t hr o ugh o ut t he t r af f i c s t o p. Thes e a r gum e nt s m i s unde r s t ando ur requ i rem en tt h at the G overnm en tm u stdem on st rat e a “ pl au sibl e i n ference” of kn ow l edg e. W e w i l l n ot reach beyond t h e proper bou n ds of revi ew t o w e igh t he
e v id e n c e a s A lle n im p lic itlyre q u e s ts . S ee Bre nnan’ s Inc. v. D i c ki eBr e nnan & Co. , 37 6 F
. 3 d35 6 , 3 6 2 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 4 ) (“ [T ]he cou rt m a y n ot m a k e cre d ib i l i tyN o. 09- 30168

6 de t e r m i nat i o ns o rw e i gh t he e vi de nc e , a s t ho s e ar e j ur y f unc t i o ns . ” )
. W hi l e t he j ur y c o ul d ha veb e l i e ve d Al l e n’ s s ugg e s t i o n o f w hatha ppe ne d, itw as und e rno o bli ga t i o n t o dos o . Ac c o r di ngly, w e f i nd n o b as i s upon w h i ch t o s e ta s i de t he j u ry ’ s ve rd i ct. B
. T h e Conf rontat i on C lau se A l l en al so c l ai m s t h e di st ri ctcourti m perm i ssibl y al l ow ed t h e i n t rodu ct i on of he a rsa y sta tem en ts t h rou gh ou t th e cou rse of th e tri a li n viol a ti on of h i s ri gh ts und ert he C onf

r ontat i on C l ause . Spec i f i c al l y, A l l en c l ai m s t hats eve r al
w itn e s s e s w e r e p e r m itt e dto te s tify a s to s ta te m e n ts m a d e b yJ a c kim m e d ia te ly f oll ow i ng A l l en’ s ar r es t . A f t er r evi ew i ng t he t r i al r ec or d, w e f i nd that t he t r i al
c our tdi d noter ri n al l ow i ng any of t he di sput ed t es t i m ony. A l l en m ad e no obj ect i on t o t h e adm i ssi on of an y of t h e t est i m on y h e now cl a i m s violatedh i s con fron tat io n r igh t. W h en the com p l a i n i n g p a rty fail s to obj ecta ttri alw e revi ew a d i st ri ctcou rt ’ s evi den t i ary rul i n g on l y f or pl ai n err or. Un i t ed Stat es v. T

h ompson , 4 5 4 F
. 3 d4 5 9 , 46 4 ( 5 thC i r. 20 0 6 ). T o d em on strate pl ai n er r or , t he appell antm usts how t he di st r i c t c our tc om m i t t ed an e r r ort hat
w a s c l e a ro ro b v io u s a n dth a t a ffe c te dth e d e fe n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . I d. Eve n if t he di s t r i c tc o ur tpl ai nl y e r r e d, w e w i l lnotco r r e c tt he er r o runl e s s “t he
errorha s a ser i ou s ef fecton the fai rness, i n t egri t y, o r p u b li c repu t ati on of j u d i ci a lpr oce ed in gs . ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Al v arado

- Sant i lano , 434 F. 3d 794, 795 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Th e Conf

r ont at i on C l ause bars the adm i ss i on o f out
- of

- c our tt es t i m oni al
s t at e m e nt s a ga i ns tac r i m i nalde fe nda nt , u n l e s s t he pr o s e c ut i o n s ho w s t he
o ut
- o f

- c o ur tde c l ar anti s una va i l ab l e t o t e s t i f y att r i aland t he de fe nda ntha d a p ri or op p ortu n i ty to cross -exa m i n e th e d eclara n t on the o u t- of- cou rt statem en t. Un i t ed Sta tes v. Pryor , 483 F. 3d 309, 312 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (c i t i ng C r aw f or d v. W ash i ngt on , 541 U
. S. 36, 59 ( 20 04 ) )
. Tes t i m o ni als t at e m e nt s m ayb e a dm i t t e d, ho w e ve r , s o l o ng as t he y ar e us e d t o pr o ves o m e t hi ng o t he rt han t he t r ut h o f t heN o. 09- 30168

7 m a tt e ra s s e r te d
. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hol m es , 4 0 6 F .3 d3 3 7 , 3 4 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); see als o C raw f

ord , 541 U
. S. at 59 n. 9 (“ Th e [ C onf r ont at i on] C l ause . . . doe s notbar th e u se of testim on i a ls tatem en ts for p u rp ose s oth er th a n e stab l i sh i n g th e tru th of t he m at t eras se r t ed. ” (c i t i ng T enn ess ee v. S t ree t , 4 7 1 U .S . 4 0 9 (1 9 8 5 )). T h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otpl ai n l y err by al l ow i n g t h e ad m i ssi on of an y of t est i m on y cit ed by A l l en . W e do not kn ow w h at Jack sai d to t h e vari ou s of f i cers w h o in te rv ie w e dh im D e c e m b e r4 , 2 0 0 5 . N e ith e rd idth e ju r y . A t n o p o in t d id
an y w i t n ess t est i f

y t o an y pi ece of

i n f orm ati on conveyed by J ack. La vi ol et t est i f i ed that he ask ed Ja ck w h et h er th e w eap on w as his an d w h et h er he kn ew t o w h o m i tbel on ged , an d Ja ck respond ed. B u t , ul t i m ately, L aviol etnev er te s tifie da s to th e co n te n t o f J a c k ’ s re s p o n s e s . A l l en arg u e s t h at, by i m pl i cat i on , t h e j u ry w as t ol d that Jack d en i ed
owne r s hi p o f t he g un . Ev e n a s s um i ng , t ho ugh, t ha t t he “ s t a t e m e nt” w as

“ ad m i t t ed” byinference an d su ch ad m i ssi on t ri ggers t h e C on f rontat i on C l au se, A ll e n s t il l c a n n o tp r e v a il
. L a v io le t ’s t e s t im o n ya n da llo t h e rr e fe r e n c e s to J a c k ’s
s t at e m e nt s w e r e no to f fe r e d t o pr o vet he t r ut h o f a ny s t atem e ntb y Ja c k. Inst ead , t h e di spu t ed tes t i m on y w as of fered t o expl ai n w h y t h e of f i cers di d n ot f i n gerpri n tt h e firearm , look forD N A , or ot h erw i se p erf orm theiri n vest i gati on dif fe r e nt l y. Al l e n’ s de fe ns e s t r at e gyw as t o s ugg e s tt h e off i c e r s c o nduc t e d a sl opp y i n vest i gati on . L aviol et ’ s t est i m on y w as desi gn ed to show t h at th e of f i cers at l east spok e w i t h Jack bef ore deci di n g t o f

ocus on A l l en . T h at ju stif i cat i on c ons t i t ut es useof

Jac k’ s “ st at em ent s, ” i nso faras t hey w er e i nt r oduc ed, t o pr ove s o m e th in go th e rth a n th e tr u th o f th e m a tt e ra s s e r te d
. A c c o r d in g ly , A lle n fa ils to s h o w p la in e r r o r u n d e r th e C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e . S ee C raw f ord , 541 U
. S. at 59 n. 9. I I I . C ONC L US I ON T h e j u ry ha d m ore th an suf f i ci en tevi den ce t o concl u de that A l l en kno w i ngly po s s e s s e d t he f i r e ar m di s c o ve r e d i n hi s v e hi c l e . H i s c o nduc tt he ni ghtN o. 09- 30168

8 of hi s arr est , coupled w i t h hi s ow n ershi p of t h e v eh i cl e a n d t h e im pl au sibi l i t y of t he c o nt e nt i o n t hatJ ac k s e c r e t e d the g un whi l e b e i ng w atc h e d, w as s uf f i c i e nt t o c r e at e apl aus ibl e i nfe r e nc e o f kno w l e dg e a nd the G o ve r nm e nt w as und e rno o b lig a tio n to a ffir m a tiv e lyd is p r o v e A lle n ’ s th e o r yo f th e ca s e . A l l en ’ s Conf

r o nt at i o n Cl aus e c l ai m s i m i l ar l y fail s . Eve n a s s um i ng t he di spu t ed tes t i m on y i n t rodu ced out- of

- court st atem en t s, t h e adm i t t ed evi den ce w as no to f

fe r e d t o pr o ve t he t r ut h o f Ja c k’ s s t at e m e nt s . I ns t e ad , t he q ue s t i o ni ng of Jac k w as i nt r oduc ed t o r ebut A l l en’ s c ont ent i on t hat t he of f i c er s’ fai l ed to c o nduc tac o m pl e t e a nd th orough i nve s t i ga t i o n. As s uc h, t he a dm i s s i o n o f t he d i sp u tedtesti m on y d i dn ot viol a te A l l en ’ s con fron tati on ri gh t. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we AF FI RM
.