United States v. Jones

Case: 21-30546 Document: 00516267490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 5, 2022
No. 21-30546
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Billy Ray Jones,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:20-CR-241-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Billy Ray Jones appeals his within-Guidelines sentence of 57 months
of imprisonment following his guilty plea conviction for possession of a
firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that
the district court erred by applying an enhanced base offense level of 20
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30546 Document: 00516267490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
No. 21-30546
because the offense involved silencers (U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)) and by
applying a two-level enhancement for possession of three to seven firearms
(§ 2K2.1(b)(1)(A)). We review the district court’s “application of the
Guidelines de novo and [its] factual findings—along with the reasonable
inferences drawn from those facts—for clear error.” United States v.
Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). “A factual finding is not clearly
erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Although Jones concedes that he possessed two firearms, he argues
that both enhancements were inappropriate because his possession of the
additional firearms and the silencers found in the bedroom closet was never
established. “Possession of a firearm may be actual or constructive.” United
States v. Hagman, 740 F.3d 1044, 1048 (5th Cir. 2014). Where, as here, joint
occupancy is an issue, we “will find constructive possession only when there
is some evidence supporting at least a plausible inference that the defendant
had knowledge of and access to the illegal item.” United States v. Meza, 701
F.3d 411, 419 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citation, and
emphasis omitted). We employ a “common sense, fact-specific approach.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, such a common sense, fact-based approach supports the district
court’s finding that Jones had constructive possession of the other firearms
and the silencers. These items were located inside of a closet in a bedroom
that he shared with his girlfriend. There is nothing in the record that suggests
these firearms were inaccessible to him, were deliberately hidden from view,
or belonged to his girlfriend. Cf. United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 348-
49 (5th Cir. 1993). The fact that other items belonging to Jones were found
inside the closet, such as his clothing, wallet, and identification, supports an
inference that he had access to and actually had been inside of the closet. In
addition, a shotgun that he admitted purchasing was found there, further
2
Case: 21-30546 Document: 00516267490 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2022
No. 21-30546
supporting an inference that he had access to the closet and knowledge of its
contents. Inside the closet, several of the firearms were clearly visible,
including the silencers. See United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200, 1211-12 (5th
Cir. 1996). Finally, Jones was seen possessing a rifle that later was
determined to fit the silencers, which supports an inference that he knew
what those items were and their intended purpose.
Thus, it is plausible that Jones had knowledge of and access to the
firearms that were located in the bedroom closet, including the silencers. See
Meza, 701 F.3d at 419. As a result, the application of the enhancements found
at § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) and § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) was not clearly erroneous. See
Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 146.
AFFIRMED.
3