FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 4, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1301 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00031 -CR- HL -7 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us ANTHONYRANDY DUNCAN, D ef en da nt- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 4, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , B IR CH a nd B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Anthony Randy Duncan appeals his j ury

conviction for possession of a fir earm by a con vi ct edfel on in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( a)(2 ).Fr om the distance that he trave led in the fe w sec onds he wa s out of their sig ht, the 1 o ff i ce rs s urm i s edth atDu n ca nmu s th av e b ee nru n n i n g. 2 D unc ana rg ue s th at

the gov er

nm en t' s e vid en ce w as ins uf fi ci en t t o pr ove be y ond a reasonable doubt th at he w as guiltyof the offe nse.

I. F acts and P rocedu ral Back ground O n t h e a f

t e rn o o n J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 3 , L o w n d e s C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s D e p u t y J i mmy Roy als and three other offic ers w ere seated in an unm arked police carthat wa s sto ppe d be hin d tw o othe r car s a t an in te rs ec tio n. D ep uty Ro y al s saw A nth ony D unc anappr oa ch ing the int er se ct ionon f oot
. Whe n D unc anr ec ogni ze d th e of fi ce rs , w hom he kne w , he loo ke d sur

pr ise d, tur

ne d ar ound , w al ke d qui ck ly in the opp osi te dir ec tio n, r ound ed

a co rn er, a nd d isa

ppe ar ed f ro m vie w . T he of

fi ce rs im m ed ia te ly p u l l e d t h e i r c a r

o n t o t h e s i d e w a l k , d r o v e t o t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , a n ds a w D u n c a n s o me 100 fe et a w ay on the oth er

sid e of the str ee t. 1 When the officers c aught up with D uncan, they noticed that his dem eanor had ch an ge d. Whil e he ha d a ppe ar ed ne rv ous upon fi rs t se ei ng the of fi ce rs , he w as now
re la xe d and s m ili ng. Thi nk in g tha t D unc anm igh t have dis pose d of c ontra ba nd, D ep uty Ro y al re tr ac ed w ha t he bel ie ve d to be D unc an ' s path
. Whil e so d oin g, D ep uty Ro y al f ound a .25 c al ibe r L or ci n pi sto l l y ing on the gr ound about 50 f ee t f ro m the int ers ection w he re he ha d in iti al ly spo tte d D unc an . S cu ff m ar ks o n th e gr ound3

indicated that the gu n m ay hav e b ee n tossed to its location, and the gun wa s dry de spi te the f

ac t tha t the sur

ro undi ng are a w as w et

f ro m the day ' s in te rm itte nt r ai n. Fi nge rp r i n t t e s t i n g r e v e a l e d a p r i n t m a t c h i n g t h a t o f D u n c a n ' s r i g h t t h u m b on t he pis tol gr ip. A c onvi ct ed

f el on, D unc anw as sub se que ntl y ind ic te d f

or be ing in poss es sio n of af ir earm in vio la tio n of 18 U. S. C. §§ 922( g) (1 ), 924 (a )( 2)
. A t tri al , D ep uty Ro y al s adm itt ed tha t the a re a w he re he f ound the pis tol was a hi gh- tr af fi c re sid en tia l and bu si ne ss area an d t ha t h e d id no t s ee Du nc an ho ld in g o r di sp os in g o f th e p is to l. He further testified th at he w as not sure which side of the street D uncan had walked dow n and tha t D unc anc oul d have go ne dow n th e oppo sit e sid e of the str ee t f

ro m
w he re the gunw as f

ound
. F ina lly , D ep uty

Ro y al a dm itt ed tha t he did not att em pt t o loc at e ad dit ion al e vid en ce of the gun' s ow ne rs hip by obt ai nin g ase ar chw ar

rant f or Duncan's hom e. Duncan presented no evidence at trial. At the close of the governm ent's case, he m ove d f

or j udgm en t of ac qui tta l on the gr ound tha t the gov er

nm en t ha d f

ai le d to
es ta bli sh a ct ua l or co nstru ct ive poss es sio n of the pis tol
. H e ar gue d th at , a t be st, the gove rn m en t ha d m ad e a tenuous ci rc um stanti al ca se f or c onstru ct ive pos se ssi on. T he gove rn m en t arg ue d th at it ha d e sta

bli she d a ct

ua l po sse ss io n by

pr es en tin g ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce tha t D unc anpos se sse d th e pis tol w he n he appr oa ch ed the4

intersection and dis posed of it whi l e o u t o f t he officer s' sight. T he district court denied Duncan's m otion , holding th at D uncan's fingerprint on the pis tol, w hen
co m bin ed with th e oth er

c ir cu m stanc es of

the e nc ount er , c onst itu te d e noug h
c i r c u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e f

o r aju ry t o i n f

e r p o s s e s s i o n . Th e ju ry f

o u n d D u n c a n g u i l t y,
an d he w as se nte nc ed

to 100 m onths o f im

pr iso nm en t. II. D isc us sio n O n a ppe al , D unc ana rg ue s th at the gov er

nm en t f ai le d to pr ove a ct

ua l or
co nstru ct ive pos se ssi on an d tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have gr an te d hi s m oti on f or jud ge m en t o f acq ui tt al . W e rev ie w de novo the dis posi tio n of ade fe ndant' s m oti on fo r j udgm en t of

a cquit ta l. United States v. H ansen , 262 F. 3d 1217 , 1236 (11th Cir. 2001 ). T o up hol d th e deni al of su cham oti on, w e ne ed onl y de te rm ine tha t a reasonable fa ct -finder c ould conclude that the evidence establish ed the defendant's gu il t b e yon d a reas on ab le do ub t. Id

. I n so doi ng, w e vie w a ll fa ct s and draw a ll in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t. Id

. The governm ent can satisfy the possess ion in quiry

by establishi ng that Duncan
ac tua lly or co nstru ct ive ly poss es se d the pis tol
. U nit ed Sta tes v . L eo nard , 138 F
. 3d 906, 909 (11th Cir. 1998). Ac tual poss ession requires proof that the defendant had ph y si cal po ss es si on of o r pe rs on al do m in io n o ve r th e th in g a ll eg ed ly pos se ss ed
. Id

. Constru ct i v e p ossessi on, on the other hand, requires proof that the defendant had5

ow ne rs hip , dom ini on, or

c ontro l ov er

the obj ec t i tse lf

or dom ini on o r co ntr ol o ve r the pr em is es wher e th e o bjec t was lo cat ed
. Id

. I n th is case, D unc ana rg ue s th at the gove rn m en t f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a ct ua l or co nstru ct ive poss es sio n, but he f oc use s hi s argum ent on the latter. The governm ent argues that it presented circum stantial
ev ide nc e suf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t a j ur y f ind ing of a ct ua l po sse ssi on. Af ter careful r eview of

the rec ord, we hold th at the evidence in this case w as suffic ie nt t o a llo w ar ea sona ble f ac t- fi nde r to c onc lud e be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t D unc ana ct

ua lly pos se sse d th e pi stol. D unc anr es pond ed sus pic iou sly

upo n recognizing po lice office rs, apparently ran once out of t he officer s' sight, and changed his dem eanor upon being apprehended. He wa s in close proxim ity to a gun that bo re his f ing er pr int a nd a ppe ar ed to ha ve be enr ec en tly tossed on to the gr ound
. Consid ered together, these fac ts m ak e a strong circum stantial case that Duncan phy sic al ly

pos se sse d th e pis tol w he n f ir st s pot te d by

the of ficers . Bec au se w e fi nd
no r ev er sib le e rr or , D unc an ' s c onvi ct ionis AFFIRMED.