NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0759n.06 No. 09-5279 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. JOHNL . M I SER , De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

B EF OR E: B AT CH EL DE R, R OG ERS , a nd KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. ROGERS, Circuit J udg e. Def endant J ohn Miser appeals hi s conviction for drug and fire arm offe nses, cha lleng ing the denial of his pre tri al m o t i on to suppress and a rguing that there w as insufficient e vidence to support a conviction. Specific ally , Miser ar g ues that there was insuffic ient evidenc e to establish that he possesse d t he drug s and fire arm found dur ing the sear ch of a trailer wh e re he wa s li vin g . T he argume nts, how e ve r, la c k me ri t be c a us e the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on to
c re dit the te sti mony of inv e sti g a tin g of fi c e rs ov e r Mis e r’ s own te sti mony wa s n ot c le arl y

e rr on e ou s,
and be c a us e a ratio na l jury

c ou ld f ind that th e e le me nt o f pos se ssi on wa s pro ve d b e y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. Miser wa s char g ed with possession of 500 g rams or more of coc aine with intent to distribute, po sse ssi on

of mari jua na and oxy c od on e wi th i nte nt t o d istri bute , p os sess io n of a fi re arm in further ance of a f

elony , and possession of a firea rm by a convic ted fe lon. At a

J uly 22, 2008 hear ingNo. 09-5279

United States v. Mise r

- 2 - on Miser’s motion to suppress the e vidence supporting the indictment, Hamblen County police office rs Eri c C ar s o n and Da vid Cribley

testified that on the morningof January 18, 2008, they
rec eived a

n anony mous tip t hat Miser a

nd another

man, Fr ankie Crum, we re wanted by law
e n f o r c e m e n tan d

w e r e l i v i n g i na

t r a i l e r o n L o t9 3 o f

t h e E v e r h artC amp g r o un d

i nH amb l e nC o u n ty, Tenne ssee. The informant also said that the trailer contained a

siz able qua

ntity of illeg al drug s. The office rs testified that as the y approa ched the trailer, Mis er wa s s t an d i ng on the front por ch. The of f ic e r s id e n ti f

ie d th e ms e lv e s , a s k e d

M is e r f o r id e n ti f ic a ti o n , an d

v e r if ie d thr o u g ha

r e c o r d c heck that there was an outstanding warr ant for him in Florida. When que stioned, Miser denied that Crum was pre sent and invited the off icer s to “come in a

nd look for yourself.” The off icer s testified that when Miser opened the front door and let them inside, they smelled marijuana and sawa par

tially smoked marijuana

cig are tte lying in a

n ashtray . Miser admitted that he had just finished s moking the ma rijuana c iga

rette. O ffice r Carson be g an wa lking towa rd the bedroom, a

nd Miser said, “S t o p , y ou can’ t go in ther e.” T he off icer s then arr ested Miser f or po sse ssi on

of mari jua na and fo un d a ba g of mari jua na in h is p oc ke t. Aft er bei nga dv ise d o f h is Miranda rig hts, Miser signe d a conse nt to searc h the trailer. Neve rtheless, the offic ers obtaine d a
sear ch wa rra nt and, after transporting Miser to jail, returne d to the trailer se vera l hours later to sea rch t h e b ed ro o m , wh er e t h ey fo u n d 1 5 l ar ge b al es o f m ar i

j u an a ( ap p ro x i m at el y

1 7 0 p o un d s ) a n d

a l ar ge quantity of coc aine. A f

irea rm and oxy codone pills wer e found in the tra iler’s kitche n are a. Miser’s testimony at t h e hearingwas sig nificantly differ ent. Miser testified that after he
answe red the office rs’ questions a bout his identity and whether Crum was pre sent, the off icer s askedNo. 09-5279

United States v. Mise r

- 3 - to be allowed into the trailer, a nd Miser re fused. The office rs then pushed the ir way into the trailer. Af t er s p o t t i n g t h e p ar t i al l y

s m o k edm ar i

j u an a c i gar et t e, Of

fi ce r C ar s o nwa l k edal l th e w ay th ro u gh the tr a ile r a

nd int o th e be dr oo m, a

nd on ly a ft e r l oo kin g aro un d d e c ide d th a t “ we bet te r g e t a
wa rr ant. ” Mis e r t e sti fi e d th a t a ft e r t he of fi c e rs arr e ste d h im, he signe d th e c on se nt t o s e arc h b e c a us e the offic ers ha d alre ady

been thr oug h the whole tra iler and ha d seen a ll there wa s to see. On cr oss examination, Miser admitted that he slept in the tra iler the nig ht before the sea rch, and stay ed ther e “of

f and on.” His Dodg e Ne on was pa rked outside the tr ailer when the of fice rs
arr ived. Miser a lso admitted knowing tha t the trailer c ontained “170- some pounds” of ma rijuana, beca use he c ould smell it while inside the trailer. Finally , Miser admitted that the marijuana found in his pocket was “ the same stuff ” as the marijuana

found in the trailer
. At the conc lusion of the evidentiar y hear ing, the mag istrate j u d ge re commended de nial of Miser’s motion to suppress. To the extent the office rs’ testimony differ ed fr om Miser’s, the
ma g istrate jud g e a do pted th e off ic e rs ’ v e rs ion

of the fa c ts a

nd re je c te d M ise r’ s. Th e ma g istrate judge found that Miser invited the of fice rs into the trailer to see for themselves that no one else was pr e se nt; that th e of

fi c e rs ste pp e d in sid e , d e te c te d a str on g od or

of mari jua na and ob se rv e d a

pa rt ia lly smoked mar ij u an a

c ig ar e tt e in

p la in v ie w ; a n d th a t t h e o f f ic e r s th u s h a d p r o b a b le c a u s e to ju s tify Miser’s a rre st and the issuance of a sear ch war rant. In the alternative, the mag istrate judge assumed
a version of the fac ts based on Miser’ s testimony , and found that exi g ent circ umstances justified the office rs’ e ntry

into the trailer, be cause the offic ers ha d detec ted the odor of m ar i j u ana waftingNo. 09-5279

United States v. Mise r

- 4 - throug h the trailer ’s open front door. The district c ourt revie wed de novo the entire rec ord, adopte d the ma g istrate jud g e ’s re c omm e nd a tio n, and de nie d M ise r’ s mo tio n to su pp re ss. The off icer s repe ated their

testimony

at trial. In addition, sev e ral other key piece s of evidenc e
connec ted Miser to the c ontraba nd found in the trailer
. Tom Everha rt, the owner

of the c ampg round, testified that his home adjoined the c ampg round and that he could see ever y one comingand g oing from the campg round. Everha rt testified that Miser was the sole occupa nt of the trailer from Oc tober 2 0 0 7 u n t i l h i s arre s to nJ an u ary 1 8 , 2 0 0 8
. E v erh art fu rt h er t es t i fi ed th at fr o mOc t o b er 2 0 0 7 t h ro u gh J anuar y 2008, the only car

regularly parke d outside the trailer on L ot 93 was a D odg e Ne on, which Ev e r h art s aw M is e r

dr iv in g a lm o s t e v e r

y d ay , le av in g in

th e mo r n in g an d r e tu r n in g late eac h afte rnoon. Ever

hart testified that L ot 93 was lease d to Miser’s niec e, Samantha Wheatley , who lived elsewhe re but a llowed Miser to live in the trailer . Eig ht day s befor e his arr est, Miser paid Eve rhar t $2 83 to c ov e r t

he monthl y

le a se and ba c k r e nt. J ames He neg ar te stified that on J anuar y 18, 2008, he shar ed a c ell with Miser in the Hamblen County jail. Hene g ar first met Miser during the summer of 2007. Hene g ar testified t h at he
occa sionally

saw Miser w ith a firea

rm, and that the firearm recove red from the trailer rese mbled a g un that Mi se r h a d p re vio us ly sh ow n h im. He ne g ar test if ied that, whil e the y

we re sh ari nga

c e ll, Miser said that his home had be en ra ided and that he had been caug ht with his firea rm and qua

ntities of coc aine, mar ijuana, and oxy codone. H eneg ar f urther te stified that the g un s ei z ed by the police
wa s th e same on e Mis e r h a d p re vio us ly sh ow n h im.No. 09-5279

United States v. Mise r

- 5 - Fe dera l ATF a g ent Gre g ory Moore testified that he processed Mis er after his arr est and that Miser re ported his home addr ess as L ot 93 at the Ever hart Campg round. A ke y to the t railer was fo un d o n th e same ke y

ri ngthat c on ta ine d a

ke y to Mis e r’ s Do dg e Ne on . H ow e ve r, no fi ng e rp ri nts
wer e taken from the firea

rm rec overe d from the trailer. A g ent Moore te stified that the fire arm wa s not fing erpr inted beca

use fe dera l ag ents investigating the c ase be lieved the link betwe en Miser a nd the g un had bee n established. At the close of the g overnme nt’s evidenc e, Miser moved for a judgme nt of ac quittal, arguing that there was insuffic ient evidenc e linking him to the drug s and fire arm seized fr om the trailer, othe r tha n h is p re se nc e wh e n th e of fi c e rs arr ive d. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e mot ion , e xpla ini ngthat a rational jury could find all the essential elements of the char g ed crimes. The jury convicted Miser of possession of 500 gra

ms or m ore of coca ine wit h intent to distribute, possession of marijuana a nd
ox y codone w ith intent to di stribute, and possession of a firea rm by a convic t ed fe lon. Miser was sentenc ed to 120 months in prison, the statutory minimum , and now a

ppeals his conviction. The district cour

t properly denied Miser’s motion to suppress beca use the evidenc e, viewe d in the light most favor able to the United States, suppor t s t h e d i s t rict cour t’s finding that Miser consente d to the office rs’ e ntry of the tra iler. The district c ourt adopted the mag istrate judg e’s
c on c lus ion

tha t th e of fi c e rs ’ v e rs ion

of the fa c ts w a s mo re c re dibl e th an Mi ser ’s . B e c a us e “[f]i ndings of

fac t anchor ed in cr edibility assessments ar e g ener ally not subject to reve rsal upon appella[te] review,” United States v. Taylor , 956 F.2d 572, 576 ( 6th Cir. 1992) (en banc) , the district
c ourt ’s c on c lus ion

that Mi se r v olu

nta ri ly c on se nte d to the se arc h w a s n ot c le arl y e rr on e ou s.No. 09-5279

United States v. Mise r

- 6 - Whether conse nt to a sear ch is voluntary is “a que stion of

fac t to be deter

mined from the totality of all the c ircumstance s,” Sc hn e c k lot h v . B us tam on te , 412 U.S. 218, 227 (19 7 3 ), and a district c ourt’s fac tual finding s supporting denial of a motion to suppress ar e re viewed f or cle ar e rror . Un ite d S tates v . G ro ss , 550 F.3d 578, 582 (6th Cir. 2008). When the district court ha s denied the motion to s uppress, this co u rt m u s t consider the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the g overnme nt. Un ite d States v . S mi th , 5 94 F .3 d 5 30 , 5 35 (6 th C ir . 2 01 0) ; United States v. Garrido , 467 F.3d 971, 977 ( 6th Cir. 2006). “Where the re a re two pe rmissible views of the e vidence , the fac tfinder’ s choice betwee n them cannot be clea rly err oneous.” U

n i t e d S ta t e s v . R os e , 889 F.2d 1 4 9 0 , 1 4 9 4 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 8 9 ) ( qu o t i n g An de rso n v . Ci ty of B esse me r Ci ty , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). Vi ew ed in the lig ht most favorable to the g overnme nt, the evidenc e supports the district court’s c onclusion that Miser conse nted to the ini t i al en t ry of the tra iler. Miser a rgues that the office rs’ testimony

was “ inhere ntly ” incr edible, and the ref ore that the district court’s fi n ding of consent wa s not a “pe rmissible” view of the evidenc e. Howe ver, it is not difficult to imagine why a suspec t might co n s en t t o a sea rch unde r these c ircumstance s. Miser may have be lieved that the office rs wer e looking only for F rankie Crum—not drug s—and t hat conse nting to entr y for pur poses of ver ifying the absenc e of Crum would not expose him to a thoroug h sear ch of the trailer. Indeed, the vast majority

of cr iminal defenda

nts voluntarily

consent to be se arc h ed—eve n when they are
car rying dr ug s. See, e .g. , Samuel R. Gross & K ather ine Y. B arne s, Road W ork: Rac ial Profil ing and Drug Interdiction on the Highway , 101 Mich. L . Rev. 651, 675-76 (2002)
.No. 09-5279

United States v. Mise r

- 7 - Thus, ther e i s n othing “ inhere ntly ” incr edible about the of fice rs’ testimony

that Miser consente d to the sear ch of the t ra i l er. Any argument that the police of fice rs exag g erated or
m i s r e p r e s e n t e d

t h e v o l u n t ar i n e s s o f

M i s e r ’ s c o n s e n tg o e s t o th e c r e d i b i l i ty o f th e o f f i c e r s ’ t e s t i m o n y,
no t to any

inh e re nt i mpl a

us ibi lity of Mis e r’ s c on se nt u

nder the c ir c ums tanc e s. Suc h c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns are fo r the fa c tf ind e r. B e c a

us e the e vid e nc e , v ie we d in the lig ht m os t f

avo ra ble to the United States, supports t h e d i s t ri ct court’s conclusion that Miser conse nted to the entry of the tr a ile r, the c ourt

pr op e rl y de nie d M ise r’ s mo tio n to su pp re ss. L ike wi se , th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr op e rl y de nie d M ise r’ s mo tio n f

or jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l be c a us e the evidenc e amply established that Miser poss essed the drug s and firear m found inside the trailer wher e he was li ving. E vidence is sufficient to support a c riminal conviction if, “a fter vie wing the evidenc e in the l ight most favor able to the prosec ution, any rational trier of fa ct could have found the eleme nts of the cr ime beyond a re asonable doubt.” J ac k so n v . Vir

gin ia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) ( emphasis in orig inal). Be cause the record contains ample evidence f rom which a

rational j u ry co u l d fi n d b ey o n d

a r ea s o n ab l e d o u

b tth at M i s er

ac tu al l y o r c o n s tru ct i v el y

p o s s es s edth e d ru gs
and fi re arm se ize d f ro m th e tr a ile r, his su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e c ha lle ng e la c ks me ri t. “[C] onstructive poss es s i o n exis ts when a pe rson . . . knowing ly has the powe r and the i n t en t i o nat a gi v en t i m e to ex er ci s e d o m i n i o nan d co n tro l o v er

an o b j ec t , ei th er

d i re ct l y o r t h ro u gh others.” United States v. Hunte r , 5 58 F .3 d 4 95 , 5 04 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) . “Phy sic a l pr oximi ty to d ru g s,
or mere prese nce in a

n are a whe re dr

ug s are found, is not sufficient.” Un ite d States v . W hite , 932 F.2d 588, 589 ( 6th Cir. 1 9 9 1 ). However, “ [t ]he gove rnment may meet its burden” of provingNo. 09-5279

United States v. Mise r

- 8 - possession bey ond a re asonable doubt “throug h circ umstant ial evidenc e alone , and such e vidence need not e x clude e very

possible hy

pothesis except that of g uilt.” United States v. J ackson , 55 F.3d 1219, 1225 (6th Cir. 1995). I n this case, the e vidence was more than suffic ient to establish constructive poss es s ion beyond a rea sonable doubt. See J ackson , 443 U.S. at 319. I n addition to Miser’s prese nce when the office rs ar

rived, c ircumstantial evidenc e demonstr at ed M i s er’ s connec tion to the trailer and the contra band found inside. There was testim ony that Miser had been the sole occ upant of the tra iler for at least three months prior to his arrest; that Miser pa id rent to Ever hart for his use of L ot 93; that a key to the t railer was found on the s ame key ring that contained a key to Miser’s Dodg e Ne on; that Mis e r a dmi tte d to th e of

fi c e rs that he ha d b e e n s tayingin t he tr a ile r; and

that Mi se r g ave his ho me addre ss as L ot 93 of the Ever hart Campg round. Th e re wa s a lso te sti mony that th e cocai ne and

ma ri jua na we re fo un d in

the tr a ile r’ s o nly bedroom; t hat when Office r Carson be g an wa lking towa rd the be droom, Miser said, “ Stop, y ou can’ t g o in there,” sug g esting Miser wa s awa re that t h e bedroom contained c ontraba nd; that Miser admitted that he had just smoked a marijuana cig are tte, which wa s ly ing in plain view ; and that he had an a dditional quantity of marijuana

in h i s p o ck et. Off

icer Cribley testified that while he w as transportingMiser t o jail, they drove through a “high class” neighborhood, and Miser commente d that he could buy one of the houses in the subdivision “with what’s in that trailer.” Moreve r, James He n ega r t es t i fi edt h at wh i l e t h ey we re s h ar i n g a ce l l , M i s er ad m i t t ed t o h i mth at h e w as s t o ri n g l ar geNo. 09-5279

United States v. Mise r

- 9 - quantities of drug s in the trailer, and that the g un seized by the police wa s the same one Miser had pr e vio us ly

sh ow n h im. Miser re lies on United States v. Birmley , 529 F.2d 103, 107-08 (6th Cir. 1976), in which the court he ld th at t he def

endant’ s prese nce a s a bac k-seat passeng er in a car transportingstolen firea rms, by itself, was not suffic ient to prove that he knew that f irea rms wer e in the trunk of the c ar. But unlike the de fenda

nt in Birmley , Miser was the exclusive r esident of the trailer for a n extended period of time. Thus, Birmley does not support Miser’s a rgument that no rational jury could have fo un d th e e le me nt o f p os se ssi on be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. Miser also conte sts the cr ed i bility of James Heneg ar, but this challeng e g oes to the
we ig ht— no t th e su ff

ic ie nc y —o f t he e vid e nc e . “ Th is C ourt ha s c on sis te ntl y state d th a t in c a se s in wh ic h w e a sse ss t

he su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e , w e do no t w e ig h th e e vid e nc e , a sse ss t he c re dib ili ty of the witnesse s, or substitute our judgme nt f or that of the jur

y .” Un ite d S

tates v . B ar

ne tt , 398 F.3d 51 6, 52 2 ( 6th

Cir . 2 005) (i nt erna l quot a tio n ma rk s and a lte ratio n o mitte d) . A s w e sa id i nUnited States v. Adamo , 7 42 F .2 d 92 7, 93 5 (6t h Ci r. 19 84 ), “ a tta c ks on wi tne ss c re dib ili ty

are sim ply challeng es to the qu ali ty

of the g overnme nt's e vidence an d n ot to the sufficienc y of the e vidence ” (empha sis in original). We do not need to dec ide whethe r we would find constructive possession pr oven beyond a
rea sonable doubt. We a

re satisfied that “any rational trier of fa ct could” f

ind constructive possession beyond a re asonable doubt. Jack son , 443 U.S. at 319. And bec ause the evidenc e must be viewe d “in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution,” id. , a ra tio na l jur y c ou ld fi nd that Mi se r “ kn ow ing lyNo. 09-5279

United States v. Mise r

- 10 - ha[d] the power

and the intention . . . to exercise domini on and control over” the drug s and fire arm found in the trailer
. Hunter , 558 F.3d at 504. Be cause the district court prope rly denied both Miser’ s motion to suppress and motion for acquittal base d on insufficienc y of the e vidence , the conviction is aff irmed.