eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 2000-06

United States v. Jenkins ( 2000 )


Menu:
 
  •       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-2098
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
MAX DEE JENKINS,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
Stephen B. Hrones and Hrones & Garrity on brief for
appellant.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Nadine
Pellegrini, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
June 13, 2000
Per Curiam.     After a thorough review of the record
and   of   the   parties’   submissions,       we   affirm     appellant’s
conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).
The evidence tended to show that appellant Max Dee
Jenkins (“Jenkins”) lived at the residence from which the
firearms were confiscated, because he had purchased and
moved into the residence with his companion nine months
earlier;    when     released   from    jail    and    restrained     from
visiting the residence, he had nowhere to live except a
friend’s    house;    and   approximately      one     month    later,   he
returned to the residence to retrieve clothing and other
personal items (including a large cache of ammunition).
Constructive     possession     may    be   established      by   evidence
showing that the defendant lived at the residence where the
objects in question were found immediately prior to their
discovery by police.        See United States v. Vargas,
    945 F.2d 426
    , 427-28 (1st Cir. 1991).
Further, the evidence tended to establish that
Jenkins owned the firearms in question.               After the firearms
-2-
were confiscated, he began efforts almost immediately to
retrieve them, including devising a deceptive plan whereby
the guns would be shipped out of state for his retrieval.
Further, he told both a licensed firearms dealer and the
local    police   that   the   weapons    were   his.   Ownership    is
“highly relevant” to the question of possession.                United
States v. Rogers,
    41 F.3d 25
    , 30 (1st Cir. 1994).
Taking this evidence in a light most favorable to
the government, United States v. Smith,
    101 F.3d 202
    , 215
(1st Cir. 1996), we think a rational jury could conclude that
appellant constructively possessed the firearms during the
time    charged   in   the   indictment.     See   United   States   v.
Collins,
    60 F.3d 4
    , 8 (1 st Cir. 1995) (conviction under
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1) affirmed where firearms were found at
defendant’s residence and defendant made statements tending
to show he owned the firearms).          The lower court did not err
in     denying    defendant’s     motion     for    acquittal   under
Fed.R.Crim.P. 29.
Affirmed.    1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).
-3-