The Honor able Ka rl S. F orester , Senior United States District J udg e for the Easter n District * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. 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: 07a0681n.06 F iled: Septem ber 19, 2007 No. 06-1259 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT PETE CANNON, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. BLAI NE L AFL ER, Warden, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : SUTTON and Mc KEAGU E, Circuit J udg es; and F ORESTER, District J udg e. * SUTTON, Circuit J udg e. Pete Cannon a ppeals fr om the denial of his ha beas corpus pe tition, claiming that there was insuffic ient evidenc e to support hi s convictions. Be cause the evidenc e wa s sufficie nt to support the jury ’s ver dict, we a ffirm.
I.
On Marc h 24, 1999, afte r making a contr olled purcha se of c ocaine from Jacqueline B owder y at a house on North F ifth Street in Sag inaw, Michig an, the police raided and sea rche d the house. The police found P ete Cannon in one room, coca ine i n another room and four more people in otherNo. 06-1259

Cannon v. Lafler

- 2 - ro oms . A se arc h of Cann on y ie lde d his Ve te ra ns Ad min ist ratio n pa tie nt d a ta

c ard , w hic h li ste d h is addre ss as 1712 Boxwood Street, also in Sag inaw.
L ater that n i gh t , s hortly

afte r midnight, the police raide d and sea rche d the house on Boxwood, which Cannon’ s b rot her ow ned. The re, the y found 41.72 g rams of c ocaine in the de ta c he d g a ra g e ; th re e g un s, mariju ana and ne arl y $3 ,0 00 in c a shin t

he ma ste r b e dr oo m; a

c a ble television bill addr essed to Ca nnon at the Boxwood house; and a photogr aph of Cannon and his “offag ain-on-a g ain” g irlfriend, Janice Coleman, J A 382. A s ear ch of Coleman, who was the onl y person at the Box wood house at the time of the ra id, y ielded a ma rked $20 bill used by

the police in the controlled purc hase at North Fifth. A jur y c on vic te d Canno n of thr e e c ha rg e s re la te d to Nor

th F if th— po sse ssi on wi th int e nt t o de liv e r l e s s t h an f

i f t y g r a m s o f c o c a i n e , M i c h
. C o mp . L aw s § 3 3 3
. 7 4 0 1 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( i v ) ; c o n s p i r a c y to possess with intent to deliver less than fifty g rams of c ocaine , id. § 750.157a; and maintaininga drug house, id. § 333.7405(1)( d). And it convicte d him of three char g es related to Boxwood—possession with intent to de liver less than fifty gra m s o f cocaine, id. § 333.7401(2)( a)( iv); possession of marijuana , id. § 333.7403(2)( d); and possession of a firea rm during the commission of a fe lony , id. § 750.227b(1). The Michig an Court of Appea ls a ffirme d the three convictions related to North Fifth, but it vacated the three related to B ox wood on insufficienc y -of- the-e vidence g rounds. Se e Pe op le v. Cannon , No. 232529, 2002 WL 31187868, at *2–5 (Mich. C t. App. Oct. 1, 2002). B oth parties
a pp e a le d. Whil e the Mic hig an Su pr e me Court denie d Ca

nn on ’s a pp lic a tio n f

or le a ve to a

pp e a l, People v . Cannon , 656 N.W.2d 527 ( Mich. 2003), it g rante d the State’s application and vacated theNo. 06-1259

Cannon v. Lafler

- 3 - court of appe als’ dec ision, People v . Cannon , 659 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. 2003). On remand, the cour t
o f a p p e a ls a f f ir me d a ll o f Ca

n n o n ’ s c o n v ic ti o n s. S

ee People v . Cannon , N o . 2 3 2 5 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 WL 21752819, at *7 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul y 29, 2003). Cannon filed a pe tition for habea s corpus re lief in the fe dera l district court, alleg ing that there was insuffic ient evidenc e to s upport his convictions. The district cour t denied the pe tition, Cannon v. Lafler , No. 04-CV-72447- DT, 2005 WL 3556200, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Dec
. 28, 2005), but g rante d Cannon a c ertifica

te of a ppeala bility on his sufficienc y -of- the- ev i d en ce claims relate d to the Boxwood convictions.
II.
Under the Antiterror ism a nd Effe ctive Death Pena lty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) , we may g rant the writ only

if the s t at e court’s dec ision on the merits (1) “w as contra ry to, or involved an
unrea sonable a

pplication of, cle arly

established F eder al law, a s determined by the Supreme Court,” or (2) “wa s based on an unre asonable deter mination of the fac ts in li g ht of the evide nce pr esente d in the S tate court proce eding .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)( 1)–(2)
. I n assessing whether sufficie nt evidence
e xists to convi c t un de r t he Du e Pr oc e ss C la

us e of the F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt, the qu e sti on is “whe ther, a fter vie wing the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the prosec ution, anyrational trier of fac t c ould ha

ve found the essential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt.” Jack son
v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Unde r this standard, “ a fe dera l habea s court face d with a
re c o r d o f h is to r ic a l f

a c ts th a t s u

p p o rts c o n f

li c ti n g in f e r e n c e s mu s t p r e s u me
— e v e n if it does notNo. 06-1259

Cannon v. Lafler

- 4 - appea r af firmatively

in the rec ord—that t he trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosec ution, and must defer to that resolution.” Id. at 326.

A.
Can n o n ar gu e s th a t th e St a te d id n o t s a ti s f y th e p o s s e s s io n e le me n t o f th e c o c a ine and marijuana char g es ar ising from the drugs found at t he Box wood address. Se e Pe op le v . W olf e , 489 N. W.2 d 7 48 , 7 52 (M ic h. 19 92 ); Pe op le v . E gg e rs , No
. 25 66 18 , 20 06 WL 33 56 89 , at *3 (M ic h. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2006). Under Michig an law, e ither phy sical possession or “c onstructive possession will suffice” to establish this element of the off enses. People v. Johnson , 647 N.W.2d 480, 486 (M ic h. 20 02 ); W

olf e , 489 N.W.2d at 753. “Constructive possession exist s when the totality of the circ umstances indicates a suff icient nexus b et we en def endant a nd the contra

band,” Johnson , 647 N.W.2d at 486—which the g overnme nt may show by establishing that the defendant has “the rig ht to exercise contr ol” over

the controlled substanc es and knows of t heir pre sence , W olf e , 489 N.W.2d
a t 75 3; see also People v. B urgenme yer , 606 N.W.2d 645, 649 n.12 (Mich. 2000) (“Possession of drug s occur s when the de fenda nt ha s dominion and control over them. . . . [or] when the de fenda nt is in prox imity

to the drugs and has control over them.”). Nothing preve nts possession, moreover, fr om b e ing“

joi nt, wi th m or e tha

n o ne pe rs on

a c tual ly or c on str uc tiv e ly po sse ssi ng ” the dr

ug s. W olf e , 489 N.W.2d at 753. The j u r y d id n o t e xc e e d th e mo d e s t b o u n d ar ie s o f r a ti o n a li ty in c o n c lu d ing tha t Can n o n —constructively

or per haps jointly

—possessed the c ocaine and mar ijuana found at theNo. 06-1259

Cannon v. Lafler

- 5 - Boxwood addre ss. The g overnme nt conn ec t ed Cannon to the B ox wood addr ess throug h the following evidenc e: testimony from the police that “the y had obser

ved def endant at the Boxwood residenc e on a number of oc casions,” Cannon , 200 3 WL 21 75 28 19 , at * 4; C ann on ’s tw o- y e a r- old VA patient data ca

rd showing his address a s 1712 Boxwood; a n envelope addre ssed to Ca nnon at the B ox wood addr ess postmarked J uly 8, 1998; a cable television bill found on the ki tchen table at Boxwood and addr essed to Cannon at that addre ss for cable service provided there throug h October 1998; an ene rg y

bill for the North F ifth residenc e in the name of either Cannon or his son (both of whom went by

the name of

Pete Woods) found on the kitchen ta ble at B ox wood; evidence that “number s encode d in the pag er that defe ndant possessed at the No rt h Fifth re sidence matched numbers encode d into a pag er that the police found at the Boxwood re s i d en ce,” id. a t *5 ; a ph oto g ra phof Cann on and Col e man f

ound a t B oxwo od ; te sti mony

fr om C ole man th a t “ [p]r ob a bly some clothes or something ” at B ox wood belong ed to Cannon, JA 387–88; and testim ony that the $20 bil l f ound on Col e man at B oxwo od

wa s th e same $2 0 bil l us e d d ur ingthe c on tr oll e d b uy

a t N or th Fifth. This e vidence would permit a rational trier of fac t to conclude that Cannon lived at t he B o xw o o d a d dr e s s , e s ta

b li s h in g “ a

s u f f ic ie n t n e xu s ” b e tw e e nh im an d th e dr u g s, Johnson , 647 N.W.2d at 486, and in particula r that he ha d “the r ight to exerc ise control” ove r the drug s and knew of their pr esenc e, W

olf e , 489 N.W.2d at 753.
Bu t t h at wa s not all. The g overnme nt also introduced c onsiderable evidenc e conce rning Cannon’s ac tiviti es at the N orth Fifth house and the c onnection between that house and the Boxwood residenc e. The substantial volume of drug s and ca sh found at B ox wood buttressed the g overnme nt’sNo. 06-1259

Cannon v. Lafler

- 6 - the or y that Can no n use d the tw o hou se s tog e the r in his dr ug op e ratio ns —w iththe No rt h F if th h ou se b ei n g u s ed t o s el l t h e dru gs (t h e dru g h o u s e) an d t h e Bo x wo o d h o u s e b ei n g u s edt o s t o re t h e d ru gs and proc eeds (t h e s t as h h o use). An e x pert witness testified that coca ine dea lers ofte n use two locations. And B owder

y , the seller f

rom the North F ifth addre ss, testified that Cannon provided he r wi th o nly a da ily su

pp ly of c oc a ine , th a t Ca

nn on did no t li ve a t N or

th F if th a nd that Ca nn on wo uld stop by North F ifth, af

t er s h e pag ed him, to replenish her supply and collec t the day ’s take. Consist ent with the theory that Boxwood was a sta sh house, the coc aine a nd cash f ound at B ox wood
wa s f ar g re a te r t

ha n th e a mou

nts fo un d at N or

th F if th. Vi e wi ng a ll of thi s evi de nc e in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the g overnme nt, we ca nnot say that the jury ’s B ox wood ver dicts were irrational. Cannon persists that, while he had li ved at the Box wood address in the past, he did not live there at the time of the se arc h and did not know about or have any control over the drug s found there
. The doc uments linking him to Boxwood, he points out, wer e seve ral months old or in some case s
sever al y ear s old, and Co l em an t es t ified that neither she nor Cannon ha d lived at B ox wood for approximately

16 months. Even if all of this were true, howe ver, it would not explain why some of those documents we re still located at Boxwood—on the kitchen table, of all place s—or why

what
a pp e ars to have be e n his pa g e r wa s found the re . Wh a t is mor e , th e jur y ha d ampl e re a so n to dis c re dit C o l e m an ’ s t e s t i m o n y. See Cannon , 2 00 3 WL 21 75 28 19 , at *4 (“ [T]he c re dib ili ty of [Cole man’ s] testimony was we akene d beca

use it was incon s i s t en t with her testimony at the pre liminary examination.”). The a

bsence of evide nce sug g esting that s o m eo n e els e lived at B ox wood—and Coleman’s statement that she did not know if any one was living at B ox wood, despite he r cla imingNo. 06-1259

Cannon v. Lafler

- 7 - to h a ve do ne he r l a

un dr y the re fo r ap pr oximate ly 16 mon ths —a lso un de rc uts Cann on ’s argume nt. So does the fac t that Cannon could have used the Bo x wood re sidence as a stash house without residing there on a full-time basis—all of w hich would be c onsistent with C oleman’s acknow ledg ment that some of the items f ound at the Boxwood house probably belong ed to Cannon, her a dmission that she still had a key to the house and he r pre sence at B ox wood af ter midnig ht on the nig ht of the ar

rest with the mar

ked $20 bill from North F ifth Street.
Cann on a lso po int s to the la c k of dir e c t e vid e nc e lin kin g him to the dr ug s a t B oxwo od . T his
c on te nti on

mis se s t he mar k, ho we ve r, be c a us e “ [c]ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e a lon e is s uf fi c ie nt t o sustain a conviction” in this ar ea, United States v. Spe arman , 186 F.3d 743, 746 (6th Cir. 1999), and a rational jury could have conclude d from the circ umstantial evidenc e here that Cannon possessed the drug s found at Box wood. This court pre viously has re jected suf

ficienc y -of- the-e vidence challeng es to dr

ug -possession convictions resting entirely on circ umstantial e vidence simil ar to that prese nted her e. See, e .g. , United States v. Hartman , 213 F. App’ x 396 , 4 0 1–02 (6th Cir. J an. 9, 2007) (indicating that there was no “dire ct evidenc e” linking the def endant to the dr

ug s in question or showing t hat t he defenda nt “had rec ently resided at the premise” where the drug s were found, but
n o n et h el es s h o l d i n g t h at t h er e w as s u ff i ci en tev i d en ce t o s u

p p o rt dru g-p o s s es s i o nan d dru gdistribution charg es bec ause the “g overnme nt p re sented a signific ant amount of e vidence demonstrating that [defendant] lived at the re sidence ” where t h e d rugs wer e found, inc luding “[m] ultiple items i n the house [that] had [defenda nt’s] name on them”).No. 06-1259

Cannon v. Lafler

- 8 - Cannon also ar g ues that three case s from other circ uits support his insufficiency claim. B ut those ca ses involved prosec utions premised on g uilt by association based on the defe ndants’ mer e “proximi ty to drug s possessed by other pe ople.” United States v. Vasque z-Chan , 978 F.2d 546, 551 (9 th C ir . 1 99 2) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mit te d) ; se e als o U

nit e d S tat es v . B ro wn , 3 F.3d 673, 682 (3d Cir. 1993) (“ [W ]e believ e t h at t h e evide nce a g ainst [one co-def endant] is consistent with that of someone w ith acce ss to or residing at the . . . re sidence , but with no control over the drug s or drug p a c k a g i n g a c t i v i t i e s o f

[a n o t h e r c o - d e f e n d an t ] a n d o t h e r s o c c u r

r i n g t h e re in. ” ); United States v. Zeigler , 994 F.2d 845, 848 ( D.C. Cir. 1993) (same). Given C annon’s ex tensive drug ope rations at North F ifth and his connec tions to Box wood, he c annot tenably say that his conviction sprangfrom
mere g uilt by

association or guilt by

proxi mity
. B.
Cannon also cha lleng es the suff iciency of th e ev i d en ce relating to his conviction for po sse ssi on

of a fi re arm duri ng the c omm iss ion of a fe lony . He pr inc ipa lly c on te nd s th a t th e State failed to prove that he possessed the gun and coca ine at the s ame tim e. “To support a convic tion for felony firea rm under Mic higa

n law, the state must prove be y ond a re asonable doubt that a per son 1)
car r ie d o r p o s s e s s e d

a f ir e ar m; an d 2 ) th a t h e o r

s h e d id s o d u r in g th e c o mm is s io no r

a ttempted commission of a felony .” Thompson v. Bock, 21 5 F . App ’x 43 1, 43 7 ( 6th Cir . Jan . 3 1, 20 07 ); see also Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.227b(1) . Possession of a fire arm, like possession of dr ug s, may be actua l or construc tive as we ll as joint or ex clusive. Se e Pe op le v . H ill , 446 N.W.2d 140, 143 ( Mich.No. 06-1259

Cannon v. Lafler

- 9 - 19 89 ). Con str

uc tiv e po sse ssi on

of a fi re arm e xists “ if the loc a tio n of t he we a po n is kn ow n a

nd it i s
rea sonably

acc essible to the def

endant.” Id
. F or many of the same re a so ns that a

ratio na l jury cou ld fi nd

that Ca nn on c on str uc tiv e ly possessed the c ocaine and mar ijuana found at the Boxwood addre ss, it could find t hat he possesse d the g uns found i n the bedroom there and that he possessed them at the same time that he possessed the drug s in the det ac h ed g ara g e. A jury could fa irly

believe that, while staying at the Boxwood
a dd re ss, Cann on

ke pt t he g un s c los e a t ha

nd in the be dr oo m so tha t he co uld pr ote c t th e c oc a ine in the detac hed g ara g e. See Thompson , 2 1 5 F
. A p p ’ x a t4 3 9 ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t , u n d e r M i c h i g an ’ s f e l o n yfi re arm law, the State mus t p rov e th at the fi re arm wa s “ re a dil y

a c c e ssi ble ” to t

he de fe nd a nt t o
s u p p o rt a f el o n y -f i re ar m co n v i ct i o nb ec au s e t h e a i m o f t h e fe l o n y -f i re ar m s t at u t e i s “t o d i s co u ra ge pe op le fr om h a vin g fi re arm s at t he ir d isp os al during the commission of a fe lony ”).
No t tr ue , say s Can no n, be c a

us e the “ pr oximi ty be tw e e n th e fi re arm s and c oc a ine in t

his c a se is simpl y to o a tt e n u a te d to s u p p o rt a r e a s o n a

b le in f e r e n c e th a t th e f

ir e ar ms w e r e a c c e s s ib le if or wh e n [he ] pos se sse d th e c oc a ine .” B r. at 29
. But as Ca nn on him se lf re c og nize s e lse wh e re in h is brief, the key

inquiry is whether “ the d

e fendant . . . was in proximi ty

of the fir ear

m” when he possessed the drug s, Br
. at 28 (empha sis a dded), not w hether the dr ug s we re ne ar t

he fi re arm . See Cannon , 2003 WL 21752819, at *5 ( “[ I ] t i s not the proxi mity of the fir ear

m to the drug s, but d ef en d an t ’s proxim ity

to the firea

rm that is important.”). A r ational jury could fa irly

find that Canno n k ep t t h e guns close at ha nd in the bedroom to protec t the drug s in the near by g ara g e. Cf.No. 06-1259

Cannon v. Lafler

- 10 - United States v. Ogle

sby , 2 10 F . App ’x 50 3, 50 5– 06 (6 th Cir . J an. 30 , 200 7) (d isc us sin g the “ fo rt re ss theory ,” which “ holds that if it reasonably appears that the firear

ms found on the pre mises controlled . . . by

a def endant a nd in his actual or c onstructive possession are t o be used to protect the dr ug s o r o the rw ise fa c ili ta te a drugtr ans a c tio n, the n s uc h f ir e arm s are us e d ‘ duri ngand in relation to a drug traff

icking crime’ ”).
III
. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.