FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 19, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 34 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-0 00 19 -LGW -J EG-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us LATREZZ L. SINGLETO N, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 19 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Latr ezz S in gl et on ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of afir earm by a
co nv ic te d fe lo n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) . On ap pe al , Sin gl et on arg ue s th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng in to ev id en ce a re co rd in g an d t ran sc rip t o f hi s jai lh ou se ph on e cal l, an d t ha t t he re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to supp ort h is co nv ic ti on . After ath or ou gh rev ie w of the reco rd , we affi rm . Si ng le to n was ch arg edby sup ers ed in g i nd ic tm en t wi th po ss es si on of a fir earm by a con vi ct edfel on . At tri al , Offic er Walt er Ba ld win of t he St. M ary’ s Po li ce Dep art m en t t es ti fie d t ha t o n Au gu st14 , 20 09 , he wen t t o t he Cu m be rla nd Oak s ap art m en t co m

pl ex to arre stSin gl et on on anou ts ta nd in g warran t. He fo un d Si ng le to n i n t he bre ezewa y of o ne of t he bu il di ng s, h an dc uf fedan d a rres te d h im , an d p la cedhi m

in th e b ackof h is pa tro l ca r. Sin gl et on ask edto us e th e res tro om an d B al dwi n a sk edOffic er Be ll to tak e h im
. Bal dwi n n ot ic edSin gl et on ’s car, wh ic h h e rec og ni zedbe cau se he ha d s een Si ng le to n d riv e iton m an y oc cas io ns , parke d n earb y . Alth ou gh th e carwas reg is te redto Sin gl et on ’s m ot he r, Bal dwi n h adno t s een an y on e o th er tha n Si ng le to n d riv e it . Whi le awai ti ng foranoff ic er t o a rri ve with ado g t o c he ckth e car, Ba ld win no ti cedDani el le Kin ni ttclo si ng th e driv er’s d oo r an d wal ki ng away fro m th e car . Baldwin saw s om ethi ng in he r ha ndan d i ns tru ct edhe r to st op . Whe n s he fin al ly com

pl ie d, Ba ld win saw agu n. Ki nn it t ad m it te d t ha t Si ng le to n

2ha d c al le d h er an d t ol d h er t o g etth e g unou t o f hi s ca r. Bal dwi n i ns tru ct ed

Kin ni ttto pu t the gu n b ackwher e sh e fo un d i t an d s he pl aceditba ckin th e car . Bal dwi n t he n e xp la in edth athe pre vi ou sl y work edat t he jail in th e Cam de n Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce. He co nf irmed th atth e jail reco rd edin m at es ’ ou tg oi ng ph on e cal ls an d t ha t the re was a no ti ce p os te d i n t he jail in fo rm in g t he in m at es of th e p ol ic y . Abo uta weekaft er Si ng le to n was arre st ed , Bal dwi n wen t t o the jail to pi ckup a co py of a re co rd edcal l Si ng le to n m ad e fro m jail . Baldwinst at edth athe ha d l is te ne d t o t he reco rd in g. Defen se co un se l o bjec te d t o t he adm is si onof t he reco rd in g a ndth e tra ns cri ptm ad e o f th e cal l. The co urt o ve rru le d t he ob jecti onbu t i ss ue d ali m it in g in st ru ct io n t o t he jury to de te rm in e fo r it se lf wh ethe r th e tr an sc rip t co rrec tl y refl ect edth e co nt en t o f th e rec or di ng . Kin ni tttes ti fie d t ha t s he ha d s een Sin gl et on with agu n m an y ti m es . She sp eci fic al ly ide nt ifi edth e g unadm it te d a s ev id en ce as th e g un sh e h adsee n Si ng le to n wi th onot he r oc cas io ns . Kin ni ttco nf irmed th atcar Ba ldwinid en ti fie d
as Sin gl et on ’s was the car Si ng le to n d ro ve . Kin ni ttst at edth atSin gl et on cal le d h er on hi s ce ll ph on e fro m

th e p ol ic e caran d t ol d h er t o t ak e th e g un ou t o f th e car . Sh e ex pl ai ne d t ha t Si ng le to n s ai d h e wou lddi stractth e p ol ic e so sh e co ul d re m ov e th e g un fro m

th e car , andhe to ldhe r ex act ly whe re t o fi ndth e g un . Kin ni ttst at ed 3th atBal dwi n app ro ach edhe r as sh e was go in g b ackto he r ap art m en t an d t ol d h er

to pu t t he gu n b ackwher e sh e h adfou ndit , whi ch sh e d id . Kin ni ttth enst at ed th at , when sh e sp ok e to Sin gl et on by pho ne fro m th e jail aft er h is arre st , he in st ru ct edhe r to tel l the po li ce tha t Ba ld win gave he r th e g un to pu t i n S in gl et on ’s
car. Kin ni ttrev ie wedth e tr an sc rip t o f he r ph on e co nv ers at io n wi th Sin gl et on aft er h is arre st . She co nf irmed th e v oi ce o n t he reco rd in g was he rs . Defen se co un se l re ne wedhi s o bjec ti on to th e ad m is si on of t he reco rd in g a ndth e tr an sc rip t. The co urt re m in de d the jury of th e li m it edus e o f th is ev id en ce. St . Mary’ s Po li ce Offi cer C al vi n B el l t es ti fie d t ha t h e arr iv edat t he Cu m be rla ndOaks ap art m en t co m pl ex on Aug us t 1 4 a s b ack -up fo r Bal dwi n. Si ng le to n was alr eady

in th e b ackof t he pa tro l ca r whe n h e arr iv ed . At Bal dwi n’s reque st , Bel l t oo k S in gl et onto us e th e res tro om . Bell co nf irmed th atSin gl et on us edhi s ce ll ph on e atth atti m e, an d h e to ldBal dwi n abo utth e cal l. Bal dwi n t ol d hi m Sin gl et on ha d p ro babl y

cal le d Ki nn it t t o t el l h er t o m ov e th e g un . Fi na ll y , Jo sh awa Bo on e, a fo rm er p atro lm anwith t he St. M ary’ s Po li ce Dep artm en t, al so tes ti fie d t ha t h e h adsee n S in gl et ondri vi ng th e car sev eral ti m es . At the clo se of t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se , Sin gl et on m ov edforjud gm en t o f acqui tt al , arg ui ng th atth e o nl y ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im

was t ha t o f Ms . Kin ni tt , a co 4co ns pi rat or , andth ere was no co rro bo rat io n o f he r te st im on y . The d is tri ctco urt

de ni edth e m ot io n. Th e jury con vi ct edSin gl et on of f ire arm po ss es si on , andth e co urt s en te nc edSin gl et on to 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Si ng le to n ra is es two is su es on ap pe al : Fi rs t, h e ch al le ng es th e adm is si on of th e jail ho us e rec or di ng an d t he co rres po nd in g t ran sc rip t. Sec on d, h e ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce t o c on vi cthi m . W e ad dr es s ea ch in tu rn . 1 A. Evid en ti ary Adm is si on Si ng le to n a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y adm it ti ng th is ev id en ce b ecau se itlac ke d t he pro pe r fo un da ti on as t o i ts au th en ti ci ty. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to adm itev id en ce fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. C ol e , 75 5 F .2d74 8, 7 66 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). The d is tri ct co urt h as “br oa d d is cret io n i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r to all ow a r eco rd in g t o b e pl ay edbe fo re a jury .” Id . at 7 66 (ci ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Bi gg in s , 55 1 F .2d64 (5t h Ci r. 19 77 ) ).

2 The Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e p ro vi de th atev id en ce i s p ro pe rly
Singleton stipulated that he ha d a prior f elony conviction. The g overnme nt proffe red 1 testimony that the gun had traveled in interstate commerc e. Ne ither of theseelements of a § 922(g ) off

ense a re a t issue in this appea l. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ), this 2 court he ld that all decisions handed down by the forme r F ifth Circuit before the close of business on September 30, 1981, a re bindingprec edent in the Ele venth Circuit.

5au th en ti cat edwhen th ere i s “ ev id en ce s uf fic ie ntto supp ort a f

in di ng th atth e m at te r in qu es ti on is whatit s p ro po ne ntcla im s.” Fe d. R. Ev id . 90 1( a). Onc e a pa rty has pre se nt edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o m ak e o uta pr ima fa ci e cas e th atth e pr of fere d e vi de nc e is whatitpu rp orts to be , th e ev id en ce s ho ul d b e ad m it te d a nd th e tr ie r of

factpe rm it te d t o d et erm in e whe th er the pro ffer edev id en ce i s wh atit pu rp orts to be
. Uni te d Sta tes v. C aldw el l , 77 6 F .2d98 9, 1 00 1- 02 (11 thCir .19 85 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Rul e 9 01 (a) o nl y requi res so m e co m pe te ntev id en ce i n t he reco rdto supp ort au th en ti cat io n; cir cu m st an ti al
ev id en ce al on e m ay

be en ou gh
. Uni te d Sta tes v. El ki ns , 88 5 F .2d77 5, 7 85 (11 th Ci r. 19 89 ). Inord er t o i nt ro du ce a re co rd in g a t t ria l, the go ve rn m en t m us t es tabl is h t ha t itis an“ accu rat e rep ro du ct io n o f rel ev an t s ou nd s p rev io us ly aud it edby a witn es s.” Big gi ns , 55 1 F .2dat 6 6. Th e g ov ern m en t ca rri es th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng : (1 ) th e co m pe te nc y of t he op erat or ; (2 ) th e fi de li ty of th e rec or di ng equi pm en t; (3) th e ab se nc e o f m at eri al de le ti on s, ad di ti on s, o r al te rat io ns in th e rel ev an t p orti on s o f th e rec or di ng ; an d (4 ) th e id en ti fic at io n o f th e rel ev an t s pe ak ers . Id . But“ [w]here th ere i s s uf

fic ie ntin de pe nd en t ev id en ce o f th e acc ur acy of th e tape reco rd in gs to in su re the ir r el iabi li ty, we wil l n otdi stur b t he tri al co urt’s d eci si on to adm itth em ev enth ou gh at t he ti m e th atjud gm en t was m ad e th e g ov ern m en t h adno t ca rri ed 6it s p art ic ul ari zedbu rd en[un de r Big gi ns ]. ” Uni te d Sta tes v. Hugh es , 65 8 F .2d31 7, 32 3 (5 thCir . Uni t B Oct . 19 81 ). A sp eak er’s v oi ce m ay

be id en ti fie d b y

op in io n t es ti m on y

“ba se d upo n he ari ng th e v oi ce atan y

ti m e u nd er ci rcu m st an ces co nn ect in g i t wi th th e al le ge d sp eak er.” Fe d. R. Ev id . 90 1( b) (5 ). Abs en t a s ho win g t ha t t ran sc rip ts are in accu rat e o r th atsp eci fic pre jud ic e h as oc curred , a co urt d oe s n oterr i n a ll owi ng tra ns cri pt s t o b e g iv ento th e jury. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ree d , 88 7 F .2d13 98 , 14 06 -0 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9)
. Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enitadm it te d i nt o ev id en ce a re co rd in g a ndtra ns cri ptof ajail ho us e p ho ne cal l. Alt ho ug h t he go ve rn m en t fa il edto est ab li shall th e Big gi ns fact or s attri al , th e g ov ern m en t pr es en te d a de qu at e in de pe nd en t ev id en ce o f th e acc ur acy of th e rec or di ng an d tra ns cri pt . In h er t es ti m on y , Kin ni ttco nf irmed th atth e rec or di ng was o f a
co nv ers at io n b etweenSin gl et on an d h ers el f an d s he ve rif ie d t he accu racy of th e tra ns cri pt . Sin gl et on ha s n otall eg ed– an d t he re i s n o e vi de nc e to supp ort –th at th e rec or di ng was a lt eredinan y way . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm as t o t hi s i ss ue . B. Su ffi ci en cy

of the Evi de nc e Si ng le to n a rg ue s t ha t the ev id en ce attri al was i ns uf fic ie ntto supp ort h is
co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of afir earm by a con vi ct edfel on be cau se th e o nl y 7ev id en ce o ffer edwas i m pe ach edtes ti m on y

by ano th er co nv ic te d fe lo n a ndth ere was no ev id en ce o f hi s ac tu al or c on st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm . He furt he r arg ue s t ha t the un co rro bo rat edtes ti m on y of h is acco m

pl ic e sh ou ldbe stric ke n a s in cred ib le an d i ns ub st an ti al on it s fa ce. W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er the re i s s uf fic ie ntev id en ce i n t he reco rdto supp ort a ju ry ’s ver di ctin a cri m in al tri al
. Uni te d Sta tes v. J imi ne z , 56 4 F .3d 12 80 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e m us t ex am in e th e ev id en ce i n the li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e g ov ern m en t, drawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es an d m ak in g a ll
reas on ab le cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns infav orof t he ve rd ic t. Id . A crim in al
co nv ic ti on m

us t b e uph el d u nl es s t he jury co ul d n otha ve fou ndth e d efen da nt gu il ty und er an y

reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr an k, 59 9 F .3d12 21 , 12 33 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 86 (20 10 ). To o bt ai n aco nv ic ti on forbe in g afel on in po ss es si on of afir earm , th e go ve rn m en t m

us t p ro ve th at(1) th e d efen da ntwas aco nv ic te d fe lo n, (2 ) th e de fen da ntkn owi ng ly pos se ss eda fi rearm , and(3) th e fi rearm was i n o r affe ct in g in te rs ta te co m

m erce . 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Del evea ux , 20 5 F .3d 12 92 , 12 96 -9 7 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 0)
. A def en da ntm ay

“po ss es s” a fi rearm

th ro ug h e it he r actua l o r co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ped ro , 99 9 F .2d49 7, 5 00 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (quo ta ti on 8om it te d) . To es tabl is h c on st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n, t he go ve rn m en t m us t s ho w th atth e de fen da ntex erci se d o wne rs hi p, d om in io n, o r co nt ro l o ve r th e fi rearm it se lf o r th e ve hi cl e co nc eal in g t he fir earm . See Uni te d Sta tes v. Wright , 39 2 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) ; se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Gun n , 36 9 F .3d12 29 , 12 34 (11 thCir
. 20 04 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e ex erci se of d om in io n andco ntro l ca n b e ex hi bi te d di rect ly by

th e d efen da ntor t hr ou gh ot he rs ). Co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n c anals o b e sh own when a de fen da ntha s kno wled ge of t he fir earm co up le d wi th th e ab il it y

to
m ai nt ai n c on tro l o ve r itor r educ e itto hi s p hysic al po ss es si on ev enth ou gh he do es no t h av e actua l p ers on al do m in io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Der os e , 74 F.3d11 77 , 11 85 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Add it io na ll y , a de fen da ntcanha ve co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n of a fi rearm if h e h as th e p owe r an d i nt en ti onto lat er t ak e co nt ro l o ve r it
. Gun n , 36 9 F .3dat 1 23 5. Th e g ov ern m en t ca n s ho w po ss es si on by dire ctor ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi er es -Bor ge s , 91 9 F .2d65 2, 6 57 (11 th Ci r. 19 90 ). Inord er fo r on e to be co ns id eredanacco m pl ic e, sh e m

us t b e (1 ) co nc ern ed wit h t he co m

m is si on of the sp eci fic cri m e wit h wh ic h t he de fen da ntis ch arg ed ; (2 ) anass oc ia te in gu il t o f th atcri m e; an d (3 ) a p art ic ip an t i n t ha t o ffen se as a pr in ci pa l o r acc es so ry . Ris in ge r v. Un it ed St at es , 23 6 F .2d96 , 99 (5t h C ir. 1 95 6)
. The un co rro bo rat edtes ti m on y of a n a cco m

pl ic e is su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt a 9co nv ic ti on if t he tes ti m on y on it s fa ce i s n otin cred ib le or o th erwi se in subs ta nt ia l. Uni te d Sta tes v. Le Qui re , 94 3 F .2d15 54 , 15 62 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Test im on y is

“ in cred ib le or i ns ub st an ti al on it s fa ce” i f itrel at es to fact s t ha t t he acco m pl ic e ph y si cal ly cou ldno t h av e p os si bl y ob se rv edor e ve nt s t ha t co ul d n otha ve oc cu rredun de r th e la ws o f na tu re. Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)
. Here, v ie win g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, a rat io na l t rie r of

factco ul d c on cl ud e th atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he d S in gl et on ’s gu il t be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Co nt rary to Si ng le to n’s cl ai m , th e g ov ern m en t pr of fere d m or e th anth e te st im on y of a n a ll eg edacco m

pl ic e. Rathe r, Kin ni tt te st ifi edth atsh e h adsee n S in gl et on with t he gu n, Ki nn it t, Ba ld win , andBo on e te st ifi edth atth ey

oft ensaw Si ng le to n d riv in g t he car i n wh ic h t he gu n was fou nd , an d t he jury he ardSin gl et on in st ru ctKin ni ttto m ov e th e g un in th e jail ho us e reco rd in g. Ba se d o n t hi s t es ti m on y , a reas on ab le jury co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t Si ng le to n h adco ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f th e g un . Eve n i f we were t o c on cl ud e th atKin ni ttwas Si ng le to n’s ac co m pl ic e, Si ng le to n’s ar gu m en t fa il s. Th e te st im on y at t ria l was bo th co rro bo rat edan d n ot in cred ib le or i ns ub st an ti al on it s fa ce. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm Sin gl et on ’s
co nv ic ti on . AFFIRMED. 10