Th e c ourt se nte nc e d S pen cer t o 5 8 mo nth s o n s e ve n o f t he c ounts , in c lud ingthe fe lon in 1 po sse ssi on

of a fi re arm c ount , and to 36 mon ths on c ount 7 (p os se ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o d istri bu te X an a x ) , a l l t e r

m s t o b e s e r

v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0066n.06 No. 06-6546 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. JERRY SAM PSO N SP EN CER , De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM 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 KENTUCKY O P I N I O N

Be for e : G IBBO NS, SUT TON , a nd WH ITE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. HELE NE N. WHITE, Circuit Jud ge. A jury convicted defe ndant J err y Sampson Spencer of three counts of distributing a controlled substanc e, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1), f our counts of int en tionally

possessing w ith the intent to dis tribute a c ontrolled substance , 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) , and possessing a fire arm a fter ha ving be en convic ted of a

crime punishable b y i m p ri s o nment for a term excee ding one y ear

(fe lon in possession of a firea rm), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1) . The district cour t denied Spenc er’ s motion for judgme nt of acquittal on the fe lon in possession of a fire arm c ount, and sentenc ed him to 58 months’ imprisonm ent. Spencer appea ls, challeng in g t h e sufficiency of the 1

e vid e nc e on

the fe lon in p os se ssi on

of a fi re arm c ount. We A F F I RM. INo. 06-6546

United States v. Spe ncer

“UNI TE” stands f

or Unlaw ful Nar cotics Investig ations, Treatment and Education. 2 2 A paid under cover

informant wor

king w ith Operation UN I TE , a drug task forc e, testified that 2 he purc hased dr

ug s from Spence r at Spenc er’ s residenc e thre e times i n J uly 2005. At the first buy on J uly 2, 2005, Spencer

and his wife wer e prese nt. The infor mant enter ed the r esidenc e throug h the fr on t do or int o th e liv ingro om, wh e re he ob se rv e d a g un c a bin e t ma de of

g la ss t hat c on ta ine d r if

le s, inc lud ingon e wi th a

sc op e . Spe nc e r sol d him fo ur L or ta bs in t he kit c he n. Th e se c on d b uy , o n July 5, 2005, was of me thadone a nd took place in the m as ter be droom, wher e the infor mant observe d a couple of shotguns and a pistol on t he nig ht stand. The informa nt testified he could not re call whe ther any one other

than Spence r wa s prese nt during t h e s ec o n d b u y . At the third buy , on J uly 14, 2005, Spencer and his wife w ere prese nt. Spencer retrie ved Ty lox capsule s from a small bag and sold them to the informant in the kitchen. When a sked whe ther he observe d firea rms during the third buy , the informant testified that he had not paid attention. L ater on J uly 14, 2005, UNI TE detec tives executed a se arc h war rant at Spencer ’s re sidence

. Spencer wa s o u t s i d e the r esidenc e with another man, Dustin Spaulding, moving a re frig erator. Detec tives sear ched Spauldingand found nothingon him. Spencer’ s wallet conta ined over $5,000 cash. Detec tive Keith Napie r sea rche d the kitchen a

nd located a

mesh bagon the kitchen table that

c o n t a i n e d nu m e r o u s p i l l s , i n c l u d i n g 1 0 0 T y l o x p i l l s , 5 5 H y dr o c o d o n e p i l l s , a s w e l l a s 1 4 F e n t a n yl patche s, unlabeled pr escr iption bott les and two ba g s of marijuana

. A digital scale was found on the kitchen stove.No. 06-6546

United States v. Spe ncer

3 Detec tive Craig Bur ch, who h ad o btained the de ed for the re sidence , sear ched the master be dr oo m. B ur c h tes tif

ie d that a Mar lin .2 2 ca lib e r r if le wa s le anin g a g a ins t a

ma ste r b e dr oo m w a ll and th a t h e f

o u n d 5 2 5

. 2 2 c a li b e r

r o u n d s in

ano p e nb o x in

th e n ig h t s ta

n d

. M e n ’ s an d

w o me n’s

c lot h i n g , an d a d u l tm a g a z i n e s , w e r e s t r e w nar o u n d t h e m a s t e r

b e dr o o m , b u tn o c h i l dr e n ’ s c l o t he s. Bur ch testified that he also walke d throug h the entire residenc e and found a Marlin .22 ca liber long semi-automatic r ifle in the upstairs hallwa y next t o the stairs lea ding to the ba sement, and thre e shotguns in the ba sement: a S tevens 9478 single -shot 12-g aug e shot g un; a Harring ton & Richa rdson model 58 410-g aug e shotg un; and a New Eng land Fire arms model SB1 20- g aug e shotg un. A round of 410-shotg un ammuniti o n wa s fo u n d in the baseme nt–apar t from that, all the ammunition was found in the m aster bedroom. Bur eau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire arms Specia l Ag ent Tea l testified that eac h of the five firea

rms seized functioned as desig ned. Tea l had to take one of the .22 c aliber rifles to a spe cialist to remove the tr igg er loc k befor e he could function test it. Tea l testified that the differ ent ty

pes of ammuniti on rec overe d during the searc h included ammunition that would have worke d i n al l but one of the f irea rms. Bur eau of

Alcohol, Tobac co and F irea rms ag ent Hicks, a

n expert witness reg arding traff icking of controlled substances, testified that the controlled substanc es locate d a t th e r e s id e n c e w e r e c o n s is te n t w it h d is tr ib u ti o n r a th e r th an p e r s o n a l u s e , an d that the p r e s e n c e o f

f i r e ar m s w a s t yp i c a l i nt r a f

f i c k i n g c a s e s f

o r p r o t e c t i o no f

dr u g s an d m o n e y. The district cour

t denied Spence r’s motion for direc ted verdic t on the felon in posse ssion of

a fi re arm c ount. Th e de fe ns e c a lle d n o w itn e sse s. IINo. 06-6546

United States v. Spe ncer

The pa rties stipulated to Spenc er’ s status a s a convic ted fe lon, R. 51, p. 100-01, and Spence r 3 does not dispute that the five firea rms wer e manuf

actur ed outside the state of Kentucky , as testified to by Bur eau of

Alcohol, Tobac co and F irea rms Special Ag ent J esse Hooke r, R. 52, p. 88. 4 We review de novo the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of Spe nc e r’ s mo tio n f

or a jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l, and must de termine “whe ther, viewing the evidenc e in the light most fa vorable to the p rosec ution,

any ratio na l tr ie r of fa c t c ou ld have fo un d the e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y ond a re a so na ble doubt.” United States v. Hum phrey , 2 7 9 F. 3 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 8 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( qu o t i n g J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979))

. “Circumstantial evidenc e alone is suf ficient to sustain a convic tion and such evide nce ne ed not re move every rea sonable hy

pothesis except that of g uilt.” United States v. Kelley , 4 6 1 F. 3 d

8 1 7 , 8 2 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Spe arman , 1 86 F .3 d 743 , 746 (6 th Cir. 1999)). To sustain a convic tion of being a fe lon in possession of a fire arm unde r 18 U.S. C. § 922(g )(1) , the Gover

nment must prove be y ond a re asonable doubt: 1) that the defe ndant has a prior conviction for a crime punishable by imprisonment f or a term exceeding one y ear ; 2) that the de fe nd ant t

he re a ft e r k

no wi ng ly po sse sse d th e fi re arm

and a mmuni tio n s pe c if

ie d in the ind ic tme nt; and 3) that the possession w as in or aff ectinginterstate c ommerce . United States v. Sc hreane , 331 F. 3d 548, 560 ( 6th Cir. 2003). Only the eleme nt of possession is in d i spute in the instant case

. Actual or constructive 3 possession is sufficie nt to g ive rise to c riminal liability under § 922( g )(1)

. Un ite d S tates v . Ca mp be ll , 549 F.3d 364, 374 ( 6th Cir. 2008). “Constructive p o s s es s i on exis ts when a pe rson does not have possession but inst ead knowingly has t he power and intention at a g iven time to exercise dominionNo. 06-6546

United States v. Spe ncer

5 and control over an object, either direc tly or throug h others.” United States v. Grubbs , 506 F.3d 434, 4 3 9 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Crave n , 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (6th Cir. 1973)). Proof that a pe rs on ha s d omi nio n o ve r t

he pr e mis e s w he re the fi re arm is lo cate d is su ff

ic ie nt t o e sta

bli sh constructive posse ssion. U n ite d S ta te s v . B ailey , 5 53 F.3d 940, 944 ( 6th Cir. 2009). Where a defe ndant is in none x clusive possession of premises in which illicit contra band is f ound, it cannot be inferr ed that he kne w such c ontraba nd was pre sent and had c ontrol of it unless there a re othe r incriminating statements or c ircumstance s tending to buttress such an infe renc e. Id. at 945 n.3. Spencer asser ts that no rational trier of fac t could have f

ound him to be in either ac t u al or constructive posse ssion of the fire arms. We disag ree . Spencer owned the home wher e the f irea rms wer e found. The informa n t o b s erved a gun

c a bin e t c onta ini ngri fl e s in

the li vi ng roo m whe n h e wa s at Sp e nc e r’ s r e sid e nc e on July 2, 20 05 to purcha se drug s. The informa nt was shown a photog raph of the rif le found in the master

bedroom during the execution of the sea rch w arr ant and testified that it was one of t he rifles he obser ved in the g un cabine t. Only

Spencer and his wife w ere prese nt at t h e re s i d ence on that date. The informant al s o o b s erv eds h o t gu n s an d a p i s t o l i nt h e m as t er

b e d r o o m o n J u l y 5 , 2 0 0 5 , wh en h e b o u gh tdru gs from Spence r in the master bedroom. F ive fire arms we re se i z ed fr o m t he home on July 14, 2005. One of the fire arms and a ll but one round of ammunition were found in the master be droom, along with other persona l items including me n’s and wome n’s clothing , adult mag azines and a pr escr iption bottle. Spencer did not contend that the personal items were not his. Although the fir ear ms were notNo. 06-6546

United States v. Spe ncer

The fa cts in United States v. Bailey , 55 3 F .3 d 94 0 (6 th Cir . 2 00 9) , o n w hic h Sp e nc e r r e lie s, 4 stand in stark contra st to the instant case. Af ter e vading the police, B ailey was stopped while dr iving a stolen car and a

loaded gun was found unde rneath his seat. Ba iley testified at trial that he was unawa re of the gun, had not put a gun inside the c ar, a nd did not have a gun on his person whe n he g ot in the car . There wer e no fing erpr ints on the g un and other persons ha d used the c ar on the night of B ailey ’s ar

rest and in t h e p re ce d i n g day s. Id. at 946-47. This cour t found the evide nce insufficient to support the jury ’s ver dict, noting that “ [t ]he mere f act that Ba iley was drivingthe ca r in which the police f

ound the fire arm is not enoug h to establish d o minion over the pre mises and there by dominion and control over the firea rm.” Id. at 947. 6 loa de d w he n th e se arc h w arr ant w a s e xec ute d, a mmunit ion fo r f our o f t he fi ve fi re arm s w a s a c c e ssi ble in t he ma ste r b e dr oo m. 4 Al l t h e ev idence supported the r easona ble infer ence that Spencer had knowledg e of, a

nd do min ion and c on tr ol o ve r t

he fi re arm s. No e vid e nc e su pp or te d a n in fe re nc e that th e y

be lon g e d to his children, and the most ge nerous infe renc e in Spence r’s fa vor wou l d b e t h at h e possessed the firea rms jointly

with his wife. We conclude that the district court prope rly denied Spenc er’ s mot ion for ac quittal, as there

wa s su ff ic ie nt evi de nc e to s up po rt a fi nd ingthat Sp e nc e r c on str uc tiv e ly po sse sse d th e fi re arm s sp e c if ie d in the ind ic tme nt. We A F F I RM.