United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30624

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Dale Wayne Green, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:20-CR-118-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Dale Wayne Green, Jr., was convicted after a jury trial for possession 

of a firearm by a felon and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He 

now appeals his conviction and sentence. He argues that there was 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 26, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30624 Document: 00516407025 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2022
No. 21-30624

2

insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the district court 

erred in imposing an above-guidelines sentence. We AFFIRM.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 10, 2020, Dale Wayne Green, Jr., was indicted for possession 

of a firearm as a felon and with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. 

His case proceeded to trial. At trial, the Government presented testimony 

from several officers involved in Green’s arrest. First, the Government 

presented testimony from Sergeant Jack Miller, an officer who was 

surveilling the home address where Green was arrested. He began surveilling 

the home based on a confidential informant’s tip that someone at the 

residence was selling narcotics out of a vehicle in front of the home. Sergeant 

Miller received a tip that someone named “Marco” was in front of the 

residence dealing drugs out of an SUV. Along with other officers, Sergeant 

Miller went to the residence in an unmarked police vehicle that was “very 

obvious[ly]” a police car. 

Sergeant Miller testified at trial that he pulled up to the residence and 

observed five to six individuals in the yard. He said he noticed Green in 

particular because Green seemed to pay close attention to the car, then 

calmly stood up and dropped an item on the porch. Sergeant Miller then 

approached Green, patting him down along with the other individuals on the 

scene. When patting him down, Sergeant Miller found keys in Green’s 

pocket and asked how he arrived at the house. Green explained his girlfriend 

dropped him off and, when asked about the keys in his pocket, said “Oh, she 

must be back.” Sergeant Miller testified he then hit the lock button on the 

keys, causing the horn on a Nissan across the street to sound off. Greene 

attributed the car to his girlfriend, again stating that she must have returned. 

Sergeant Miller sought to contact her, but Green explained he did not have 

her phone number. Additionally, Sergeant Miller testified that he found 

Case: 21-30624 Document: 00516407025 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2022
No. 21-30624

3

$276 dollars in Greene’s pocket in small denominations. He testified that in 

his experience “street level dealers . . . have a large amount of cash in small 

denominations because they sell [narcotics] in small amounts.” 

After the pat-down, Sergeant Miller used a drug-sniffing dog on the 

scene to check if the Nissan gave off a narcotic odor. The dog alerted on the 

passenger side of the car. Green then allowed officers to search the car. 

Another officer, Sergeant John Witham, conducted the search. He 

discovered a loaded firearm in the center console along with a debit card with 

Green’s name on it and an activation sticker still on the card. He then 

searched the trunk and discovered papers showing Green paid for service and 

insurance on the Nissan, an accident report and insurance paperwork 

indicating Green was the driver and owner of the car, and a fax Green sent.

Sergeant Witham did not discover any drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug 

residue during his search.

Sergeant Witham also testified that he discovered a bag of crack and 

powder cocaine at the foot of the porch. He testified he found the bag after 

approaching the residence and “notic[ing] a bunch of individuals around the 

yard area.” He further testified that while at the house, he observed a scale 

on the trunk of a vehicle parked at the home.

Among Green’s witnesses was his sister-in-law, Shmoyia Adams. She 

testified that Green drove a Nissan Altima and allowed others to use it; for 

example, she and her sister both used the car. She also explained that others 

would leave personal belongings in the car that did not belong to Green. 

Specifically, she testified on the day Greene was arrested, she saw her 

brother, Travarrius Adams, put a firearm in the arm rest, close the lid, and

fail to take it out when he got out of the car on Harrison Street, the street 

where Greene was arrested. 

Case: 21-30624 Document: 00516407025 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2022
No. 21-30624

4

The jury found Green guilty of both being a felon in possession of a 

firearm and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Green’s 

presentence report (“PSR”) calculated an advisory guidelines sentence 

range of 30 to 37 months of imprisonment. This calculation was based on an 

offense level of 18, as Green had a prior conviction for manslaughter. Aside 

from this conviction, the PSR also listed state and federal charges for drug 

and firearm possession from 2016 and 2017 that were later dismissed.

On appeal, Green argues that the evidence was insufficient to support 

the jury’s determination that he knowingly possessed either a firearm or 

cocaine. He further contends that the district court committed procedural 

error when imposing his sentence because it considered unreliable 

information included in the PSR about prior charges that had been dismissed. 

He also asserts that his above-guidelines sentence of 40 months of 

imprisonment was substantively unreasonable because the district court 

placed too much weight on the information related to the dismissed charges 

and not enough weight on mitigating factors related to his personal history 

and characteristics.

Because Green preserved his challenges to the sufficiency of the 

evidence, we review these claims de novo. See United States v. JimenezElvirez, 862 F.3d 527, 533 (5th Cir. 2017). We will affirm a jury verdict “if a 

reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the evidence that the elements 

of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and drawing all reasonable 

inferences from the evidence to support the verdict.” Id. (citation omitted). 

The sufficiency standard “remains the same whether the evidence is direct 

or circumstantial.” United States v. Ibarra-Zelaya, 465 F.3d 596, 602 (5th Cir. 

2006).

Case: 21-30624 Document: 00516407025 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/26/2022
No. 21-30624

5

Based on the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable jury could have 

concluded that the bag of drugs an officer found in front of the porch of a 

house was the same item another officer observed Green drop in front of the 

porch after police vehicles pulled up to the house. Thus, the evidence 

sufficiently supported the jury’s verdict on the drug possession offense. See 

United States v. Mata, 491 F.3d 237, 242–44 (5th Cir. 2007).

A reasonable jury likewise could have determined that Green 

constructively possessed the firearm discovered in the closed center console 

of a vehicle parked within 30 yards of the house. The car contained multiple 

documents indicating that Green drove and paid for service and insurance for 

the car. His own witness admitted that it was primarily his car. An officer 

found keys to the car while patting Green down. Green then gave implausible 

answers when asked why he had the keys. Moreover, a credit card bearing 

Green’s name was located in the center console along with the firearm. This 

evidence supports conclusions that Green had “dominion and control” over 

the vehicle and that he had knowledge of and access to the firearm. See

United States v. Meza, 701 F.3d 411, 419 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States 

v. Hinojosa, 349 F.3d 200, 203–04 (5th Cir. 2012)). The jury was “free to 

disbelieve” Green’s witness’s testimony that she drove and parked the car 

in front of the house on the day of Green’s arrest and that her brother left the 

gun in the vehicle. Meza, 701 F.3d at 420. For these reasons, the evidence 

sufficiently supported the jury’s determination that Green knowingly 

possessed the firearm.

As for Green’s claims about his sentence, we review Green’s

challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence de novo and the 

district court’s factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Fields, 932 

F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2019). We review Green’ssubstantive reasonableness 

claim for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Case: 21-30624 Document: 00516407025 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/26/2022
No. 21-30624

6

The PSR contained detailed factual recitations of the events and 

investigations leading to Green’s prior arrests for the charges that were 

ultimately dismissed. This information was sufficiently reliable to allow the

district court to consider the conduct underlying these charges at sentencing. 

See Fields, 932 F.3d at 320. Moreover, Green fails to demonstrate that the 

district court did not consider “a factor that should have received significant 

weight”; “give[] significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor”; or 

make “a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” United 

States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440-41 (5th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Accordingly, he does not show that his sentence was 

procedurally or substantively unreasonable. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-30624 Document: 00516407025 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/26/2022