Opinion ID: 2975028
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Possession Element

Text: In determining whether a person is in possession of a firearm in violation of § 922(g)(1), the government may present evidence of either actual or constructive possession. United States v. Moreno, 933 F.2d 362, 373 (6th Cir. 1991). “Actual possession exists when a tangible object is in the immediate possession or control of the party.” United States v. Beverly, 750 F.2d 34, 37 (6th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Craven, 478 F.2d 1329, 1333 (1973)). Because the gun was found in Bergeron’s possession, the government cannot proceed under a theory of actual possession. “Constructive possession exists when a person does not have actual possession but instead knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an 10 No. 05-6552 object, either directly or through others.” Craven, 478 F.2d at 1333. This Court has consistently held that the testimony of other occupants in the vehicle where the defendant used a firearm is sufficient to support a finding that the defendant was in constructive possession of that firearm. See, e.g., United States v. Carter, 355 F.3d 920, 925 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Schreane, 331 F.3d 548, 560 (6th Cir. 2003); United States v. Daniel, 134 F.3d 1259, 1264 (6th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Bergeron’s testimony that Defendant possessed and used the gun was sufficient such that a rational trier of fact could have found, as the jury did, that Defendant had constructive possession of the gun that was found in Bergeron’s purse. With respect to this issue, Defendant relies entirely upon our holding in United States v. Arnold, 434 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2006), vacated, United States v. Arnold, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 4995 (6th Cir. 2006). That case has been vacated and reheard en banc, thus, reliance on that case is inappropriate. As Defendant pointed out in oral argument, there are some questions of credibility with respect to Bergeron’s credibility. First, at trial she admitted that she had contradicted her testimony in a letter that she had written to Defendant stating that she only implicated him as the shooter because the officers threatened to arrest her if she did not. Additionally, as Defendant argues, because Bergeron had actual possession of the gun when the officers found it, she undeniably benefitted from testimony attributing possession to Defendant. However, these arguments are essentially arguments that Bergeron was not a credible witness, which is not within the province of this Court to decide on a sufficiency of the evidence claim. As we have explicitly held, we “must not weigh the evidence, evaluate witness credibility, or displace the jury’s judgment with our own.” 11 No. 05-6552 United States v. Wagner, 382 F.3d 598, 610-11 (6th Cir. 2004). Sufficient evidence exists where “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Blood, 435 F.3d 612, 618 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, we cannot entertain an argument that amounts to the contention that the jury should not have believed a witness. Accordingly, the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. III. The district court properly applied §§ 2K2.1(b)(5) and 3A1.1(b)(1) enhancements to Defendant’s sentence A. Standard of Review We have held that the question of whether an enhancement was properly applied is a mixed question of law and fact. While we “[w]e review for clear error the district court’s factual findings, and accord ‘due deference’ to the district court’s determination that the . . . enhancement applies,” United States v. Burke, 345 F.3d 416, 426-27 (6th Cir. 2003), we review the legal conclusions of the district court de novo. U.S. v. Layne, 324 F.3d 464, 468 (6th Cir. 2003). B. Analysis 1. § 2K2.1(b)(5) Section 2K2.1(b)(5) states: “If the defendant used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense . . . increase by 4 levels.” We have adopted the general rule of the Eighth Circuit that the “in connection with” requirement of § 2K2.1(b)(5) “should be construed as equivalent to the “in relation to” language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).” United States v. Hardin, 248 F.3d 489, 497 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Regans, 125 F.3d 685, 686 (8th Cir. 1997)). According to Defendant’s PSR, this enhancement was imposed because Defendant 12 No. 05-6552 “used the firearm in connection with an aggravated assault on Mr. Matthews [Cross’ step-father] and [Cross]” and because he “assaulted his wife and forced her to conceal the gun.”1 Defendant argues that the requirement that he use or possess a firearm with “another felony offense” must be satisfied by an offense that is entirely distinct and separate from the possession of the gun. As Defendant correctly observes, we have consistently held that the imposition of this enhancement requires a “finding of a separation of time between the offense of conviction and the other felony offense, or a distinction of conduct between that occurring in the offense of conviction and the other felony offense.” United States v. Sanders, 162 F.3d 396, 400 (6th Cir. 1998). However, as the district court correctly held, Bergeron testified that she purchased the gun because Defendant instructed her to do so two weeks prior to the shooting . We have held that possession may occur when a person has the power to exercise dominion or control over an object either “directly or through” another person. United States v. Newsom, 452 F.3d 593, 608 (6th Cir. 2006). Further, Bergeron testified that they both knew where the gun was located and that the last time she saw the gun, it was in the house in a cabinet, which indicates that Defendant exercised dominion and control over the gun and placed it in the car. Thus, the factual finding of the district court was that Defendant was in possession of the gun two weeks prior to the shooting, which is not a clearly erroneous finding given Bergeron’s testimony. Interestingly, Defendant does not respond to this 1 Defendant makes an extremely cursory alternative argument that “shoving a gun” at his wife does not rise to the level of assault where “there is no evidence that he either touched her with the gun or caused her to be afraid.” (Def.’s Brief at 17). This argument is flawed because according to Bergeron’s testimony, Defendant “shoved her off with the gun.” Thus, there is evidence that he touched her and that he did so with a gun in his hand, which absolutely rises to the level of assault. (J.A. at 38). 13 No. 05-6552 argument at all, and instead, devotes significant time to the general argument that the two offenses cannot be co-extensive. While Defendant’s argument is correct as a matter of law, it does not deal with the specific fact that in this case there is evidence that Defendant possessed the gun prior to the shooting. We conclude that the district court properly applied the § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement to Defendant’s sentence.