United States v. Jenkins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: June 13, 2000
• Docket: 99-2098
• Status: Published

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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-