Opinion ID: 65395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Harris argues that there was insufficient evidence of his possession of the pistol seized from his SUV to support his convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Because Harris preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by moving for judgment of acquittal, we employ the usual de novo standard of review. United States v. Williams, 507 F.3d 905, 908 (5th Cir.2007). Under this standard, we determine whether a reasonable jury could find that the evidence establishes the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in support of a conviction. Id. Possession of a firearm may be actual or constructive, and may be proved by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Salinas, 480 F.3d 750, 759 (5th Cir.2007). Constructive possession can be established by showing (1) ownership, dominion or control over an item; or (2) dominion or control over the place where the item is found. Id. Here, the government established that Harris owned the SUV in which the pistol was found. It also presented testimony by Kubin that only Harris had a key to the vehicle, which remained locked at all times, and, in particular, that she did not have access to it. As an appellate court, it is not our task to weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Ybarra, 70 F.3d 362, 364 (5th Cir.1995). In light of Kubin's testimony and the absence of any evidence suggesting that Harris did not have dominion or control over his SUV, there is no doubt that a reasonable jury could have found Harris guilty of the firearm possession offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore affirm the denial of Harris's motion for judgment of acquittal.