United States v. Leonard Harris ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4759
LEONARD HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-99-138)
Submitted: June 20, 2000
Decided: July 7, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Russell N. Allen, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,
United States Attorney, Rodney L. Jefferson, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Leonard Harris appeals his criminal conviction for possession of a
firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (1994). Harris
raises only one issue on appeal. He contends that the evidence at trial
was insufficient to prove that he was in possession of the firearm in
question. Finding no merit to this contention, we affirm.
Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the Govern-
ment, as we must, United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th
Cir. 1993), there was sufficient evidence to show that Harris had con-
structive possession of the firearm. "``[T]o establish constructive pos-
session the government must produce evidence showing ownership,
dominion, or control over . . . the vehicle in which the contraband is
concealed.'" United States v. Blue, 957 F.2d 106, 107 (4th Cir. 1992)
(quoting United States v. Ferg, 504 F.2d 914, 916-17 (5th Cir. 1974)
(ellipsis added)); see also United States v. Perez, 897 F.2d 751, 754
(5th Cir. 1990) (noting constructive possession"may be shown by
dominion over the vehicle in which the item is located"). The testi-
mony at trial positively identified Harris as the co-owner and driver
of the vehicle in which the police discovered the Smith and Wesson
.357 magnum revolver. Harris, as part-owner and driver of the car,
exercised extensive dominion and control over the vehicle. Further-
more, the testimony of Harris's daughter positively identifying the
weapon as one possessed previously by her father cemented Harris's
possession of the firearm. This evidence was sufficient to establish
constructive possession of the vehicle's contents.
Harris contends that our decision Blue, 957 F.2d at 108, supports
his position. In Blue, we noted that a mere shoulder dip by a passen-
ger in another person's car was not sufficient to establish possession
of the firearm under the passenger's seat. Id. The case, while provid-
ing a definition of constructive possession, id. at 107, does not benefit
Harris for one unavoidable reason: Harris was not a mere passenger
in this car. At the time police discovered the weapon, Harris exerted
complete dominion and control over the vehicle in which the firearm
was found and therefore over the firearm itself. The firearm was in
plain view in the trunk with clothes belonging to Harris. Harris's con-
2
tention that there was insufficient evidence to convict him is without
merit. Consequently, Harris's conviction is affirmed. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3