OR · 18usc922:possession
Exact element source
possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunitionSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec922; Unicode character offsets [17966:18025] (end exclusive); SHA-256 69d6082896652ca704d8da56c0a01daa1d10b51846206764bf1140610c756b65.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 5 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 5 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (5). Excluded context examples:United States v. Dunlap — 162 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of Oregon · 2016 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted United States v. Rhodes — 32 F.3d 867 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Old Chief v. United States — 519 U.S. 172 (1997) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
| _comparator accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is used as a yardstick for another statute or question, not applied to this case's own conduct. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Hernandez v. Holder — 592 F.3d 681 (2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009 — satisfied · conceded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · comparator/merits · not counted |
| actual provisional; 4 observed cases | Whether the defendant physically held or handled the firearm. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 3 | 1 | United States v. Gilliam — 934 F.3d 854 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Campbell — 28 F. Supp. 2d 805 (1998) · United States District Court for the Western District of New York · 1998 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · comparator/procedural · not counted United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 — satisfied · proved (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/dissent · not counted United States v. Kimble — 142 F.4th 308 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · conceded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/lower-court · not counted |
| constructive provisional; 6 observed cases | Whether the defendant had knowing power and intention to exercise dominion over a firearm not on his person. | 3 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 1; excluded context 5 | 3 | United States v. Rogers — 41 F.3d 25 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994 — satisfied · proved (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Kitchen — 57 F.3d 516 (1995) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 — satisfied · proved (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Gilliam — 934 F.3d 854 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Rogers — 41 F.3d 25 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/procedural · not counted United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 — not · no-evidence (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/superseded · not counted United States v. Nance — 481 F.3d 882 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/dissent · not counted United States v. Nance — 481 F.3d 882 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Campbell — 28 F. Supp. 2d 805 (1998) · United States District Court for the Western District of New York · 1998 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / procedural claim: (g)(1) Weight-of-the-evidence factor of the detention decision (3142(g)), on government proffer only; not a finding of possession. The court also relies on the general proposition that simple possession is not literally violent but inherently risky in a felon's hands. | control | It involves a charge that a convicted felon possessed and sold four semi-automatic guns in August of 1998, for the sum of $2,000.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_28.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01; Unicode character offsets [17746:17875] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bddd7660e5992492800b48b04183ba9f40e20eaa90c71e99be04e9adce960d44.The proffer by the Government is that the gun sale was a hand-to-hand transaction and that there was surveillance by police officers and that some of the proceedings may indeed have been video taped.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_28.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01; Unicode character offsets [20332:20531] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bddd7660e5992492800b48b04183ba9f40e20eaa90c71e99be04e9adce960d44.In addition, I believe the evidence against Mr. Campbell on the pending federal charges are quite strong.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_28.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/28/0805-01; Unicode character offsets [20226:20331] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bddd7660e5992492800b48b04183ba9f40e20eaa90c71e99be04e9adce960d44. |
| United States v. Dunlap — 162 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of Oregon · 2016 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (g)(1) The jury verdict is recited as the premise of sentencing; this opinion neither describes the possession nor reviews it. | Unspecified route | The indictment in this case alleged that on January 13, 2014, Defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed a handgun and that Defendant had at least three prior convictions for violent felonies.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_162.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/162/1106-01; Unicode character offsets [2718:2912] (end exclusive); SHA-256 724e82ff14e758797381730d2553ea63be3230b27287e6a7a94f3ed860082bbd.Defendant was tried before a jury and, on May 15, 2015, Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_162.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/162/1106-01; Unicode character offsets [2913:3064] (end exclusive); SHA-256 724e82ff14e758797381730d2553ea63be3230b27287e6a7a94f3ed860082bbd. |
| United States v. Rhodes — 32 F.3d 867 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) Count Six charged possession of a Beretta .380; the jury convicted and possession is not challenged on appeal. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Rogers — 41 F.3d 25 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural claim: (g)(1); theory: jury instruction defining constructive possession ("dominion or control"; ownership relevant), plain-error review; subject: theory=jury instruction defining constructive possession ("dominion or control"; ownership relevant), plain-error review The first rule line is the district court's instruction, block-quoted and approved (no [quoted] tag: it is not another appellate court's words). "Dominion or control" vs "dominion and control" is treated as immaterial because dominion encompasses control. No specific-unanimity instruction is needed as between actual and constructive possession. | control | A person who, although not in actual possession, knowingly has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, or to exercise dominion or control over the area in which that thing is found, whether directly or through another person, is then in constructive possession of the thing [emphasis added].Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [7692:8038] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4.Pursuant to the court’s instruction, there could have been no conviction absent a finding of control.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [8785:8886] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4.We discern no error in this explanation. The instructions correctly stated that ownership is relevant to the question of possession.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [8039:8171] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4. |
| United States v. Rogers — 41 F.3d 25 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994 — satisfied · proved (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (g)(1); theory: constructive possession (gun in a different bedroom from the one where defendant was hiding); subject: theory=constructive possession (gun in a different bedroom from the one where defendant was hiding) Sufficiency upheld on three items: the arrest-scene statement about "his gun", the stationhouse admission of purchase/ownership, and a matching bullet in his pocket. Hiding instead of going for the gun does not negate power and intent (jury could infer he hoped to avoid detection). The court notes elsewhere that actual possession "was not proved". | admitted-ownership-of-gun-in-another-room-and-matching-bullet-on-person | A pat-down revealed a .32 caliber bullet in his right front pants pocket. Rogers announced that the officers were lucky they found him before he got to his gun, or he would have blown his brains out.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [759:958] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4.In the meantime, the third officer went to the bedroom in the northwest comer of the apartment, where he found a .32 caliber Smith and Wesson handgun in plain view on top of the dresser.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [959:1145] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4.He stated that the gun seized at the apartment was a “throw-away” weapon that he had purchased for fifty dollars.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [1509:1622] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4.At trial, Rogers testified that the gun belonged to Michael Glennon, and denied making any statement about shooting himself, or being the owner of the gun. In fact, none of the fingerprints found on the gun belonged to Rogers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [2052:2278] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4.When the officers arrived at the apartment, Rogers hid in the closet of the northeast bedroom rather than move toward the gun in the northwest bedroom.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [12645:12796] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4.Constructive possession, however, is possession.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [3256:3304] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4.To be sure, ownership alone does not establish possession, but it may be highly relevant where the authority to exercise control is disputed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [8172:8313] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4.This evidentiary tripod is sufficient to establish power as well as intent to exercise dominion and control over the gun.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [12379:12500] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4.That Rogers did not shoot himself simply illustrates a fact of constructive possession: power and intent to act do not always result in action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_41.jsonl#/f3d/41/0025-01; Unicode character offsets [12501:12644] (end exclusive); SHA-256 85f985c408d6972a8593dfc98e7958ec1913dfa92287125bda3a9ef7ab7586f4. |
| United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 — satisfied · proved (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / dissent basis: proved; claim: (g)(1); count: Count I, defendant as principal; theory: possession inferred circumstantially: defendant as the inside man who removed the guns and passed them out; opinion: dissent (Hamilton); subject: count=Count I, defendant as principal; theory=possession inferred circumstantially: defendant as the inside man who removed the guns and passed them out; opinion=dissent (Hamilton) The dissent would uphold sufficiency: one uncluttered 18-inch cubbyhole, guns three feet inside, a timed smash-and-grab at 5:30 a.m., and flight permit the inference that he took the guns from the cabinets and handed them out. It does not say whether that is actual or constructive possession ("actually or constructively possessed"). | inferred-handling-as-inside-man-in-gun-store-burglary | Officer Walters saw Moye crawling out of the store through the cubbyhole below the side door’s knob. This cubbyhole was the only one that was not cluttered with boxes and/or store equipment/merchandise.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [25787:25989] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The distance between the side-by-side doors and the store’s gun display cabinets, which ran perpendicular to the doors, is approximately three feet.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [25606:25754] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The car was found to contain thirteen firearms and two more were recovered on Briggs’ person.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [24827:24920] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The fingerprints of Cooper, Briggs, and Moye were not found on any of the firearms.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [24921:25004] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.With two reasonable interpretations available to the jury, it was for the jury, not this court, to decide which version was more credible.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [32609:32747] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.In this case, the jury was entitled to reach the reasonable and quite unremarkable conclusion that Moye possessed the firearms as they made their way from the store to Briggs’ person and the getaway car.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [33105:33308] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37. |
| United States v. Moye — 422 F.3d 207 (2005) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 — not · no-evidence (18usc922: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not Excluded from merits counts applied / superseded basis: no-evidence; claim: (g)(1); count: Count I, defendant as principal; theory: constructive possession (government did not allege actual possession); opinion: panel majority (reheard en banc; convictions affirmed, 454 F.3d 390, IR /f3d/454/0390-01 -- not yet annotated); subject: count=Count I, defendant as principal; theory=constructive possession (government did not allege actual possession); opinion=panel majority (reheard en banc; convictions affirmed, 454 F.3d 390, IR /f3d/454/0390-01 -- not yet annotated) Panel majority: being caught crawling out of the burgled gun store, and fleeing, while the stolen guns were in the getaway car and on an accomplice, is "mere presence"; flight shows consciousness of guilt of the burglary, not of the federal possession offences. NOT GOOD LAW: see first misfit (reversed on rehearing en banc). | presence-at-scene-of-gun-store-burglary | Moye was seen by another officer crawling out of the doorway at Bart’s after Cooper took off. Moye ran but was caught a short time later.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [1532:1669] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.Thirteen firearms were found inside the vehicle. Briggs was later apprehended with two firearms in his pocket.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [1421:1531] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.No weapons were found in Moye’s possession and Moye’s fingerprints were not on the weapons recovered from Briggs and Cooper.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [1670:1794] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The Government did not present testimony that Moye had been seen with any of the guns.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [6804:6890] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.that the defendant exercised, or had the power to exercise, dominion and control over the item.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [5656:5751] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.However, mere presence at the location where contraband is found is insufficient to establish possession.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [5857:5962] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.The only evidence the Government presented to support constructive possession was that Moye was present in the same location from which the guns were stolen.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [6506:6663] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37.Because no evidence exists that Moye was ever in a position to exercise dominion and control over the weapons, we conclude that insufficient evidence existed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Moye was a felon in possession.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_422.jsonl#/f3d/422/0207-01; Unicode character offsets [6891:7132] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a985f283d54fe5655fcd55919e6391b76775cc7759c980788a6118f279f16e37. |
| United States v. Nance — 481 F.3d 882 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / dissent claim: (g)(1); count: single count, possession "on or about December 12, 2003"; opinion: Holschuh, D.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part; subject: count=single count, possession "on or about December 12, 2003"; opinion=Holschuh, D.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part The dissent would vacate for constructive amendment (the actual-possession instruction and the prosecutor's rebuttal invited conviction for the uncharged December 8 handling; unanimity doubtful); it does not say constructive possession on December 12 was unproven, and agrees the December 8 statement was relevant to it. | control | It is undisputed that on the date of the offense charged in the indictment, December 12th, the defendant did not have actual possession of the firearm. It was found by the police in a safe in the home of a friend of the defendant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [34323:34553] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.The evidence of this separate, uncharged incident of possession, however, was submitted to the jury without any limitation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [30118:30241] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.The only method of convicting the defendant of the offense charged in the indictment was to prove that he had constructive possession of that firearm, i.e., he had the right to exercise physical control over it, knew that he had that right, and intended to exercise that right.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [34554:34831] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.Because I strongly believe that there is a substantial likelihood that Nance was convicted of a crime other than the one charged in the indictment, I would reverse the conviction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [18669:18848] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f. |
| United States v. Nance — 481 F.3d 882 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural claim: (g)(1); count: single count, possession "on or about December 12, 2003"; theory: constructive possession on the charged date (key to a locked safe in another person's residence); admitted handling four days earlier used as evidence of access and control; subject: count=single count, possession "on or about December 12, 2003"; theory=constructive possession on the charged date (key to a locked safe in another person's residence); admitted handling four days earlier used as evidence of access and control REAL RULING: constructive amendment / variance (and admissibility of the December 8 statement), not sufficiency of possession - hence not-reached, scope procedural. The jury found possession; the appeal did not challenge sufficiency and this court does not hold that the evidence established it. What the court decides is that proof of an earlier actual possession did not constructively amend the indictment or prejudicially vary from it, because it was evidence of constructive possession on the charged date. The cuts-against line is the only fact in the majority opinion pointing away from control (the house and safe were at another person's residence); the court does not discuss it. | control | Upon executing the search warrant, officers discovered a locked safe containing a firearm. Nance told the officers which key to use to open the safe.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [1147:1296] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.Terry Wayne Curry, an informant who had been assisting the gang task force, testified that he had seen Nance open the same safe using a key on a prior occasion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [1819:1979] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.Nance stated that four days prior to his December 12 arrest he had been asked to put the gun away by Nicole Parker, who was at the house, and that he did so because children were sometimes at the house.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [2276:2478] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.On December 12, 2003, members of the Jackson police department’s gang task force went to 228 Shelby Street in Jackson, Tennessee to serve an arrest warrant on Martedis McPhearson, who lived at the residence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [636:843] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.The government's obligation was to prove the particular possession charged, not some earlier occasion of possession.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [16634:16750] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.The “on or about” language permits the jury to conclude that the offense charged occurred on some date reasonably close to the one contained in the indictment, but does not permit conviction of an uncharged offense that occurred in close temporal proximity to the charged offense.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [16782:17062] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.The December 8 evidence was relevant to establish Nance’s access to the safe and his ability to exercise control over the weapon on December 12 and properly admissible.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [8185:8353] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.If this evidence could be considered a variance, its admission did not prejudice defendant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [8354:8445] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f. |
| United States v. Kitchen — 57 F.3d 516 (1995) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 — satisfied · proved (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed; 21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (g)(1); count: felon-in-possession count (.357 revolver and 9 mm pistol in a first-floor bedroom); theory: constructive possession through residence in the home; joint with the girlfriend; subject: count=felon-in-possession count (.357 revolver and 9 mm pistol in a first-floor bedroom); theory=constructive possession through residence in the home; joint with the girlfriend Sufficiency upheld: residence in the home (his papers, gang bracelet, men's clothing in the same bedroom as the guns; phone number; sightings; paid for repairs) gives power to control firearms found there. Joint access by the girlfriend and his being in custody when the guns were seized (he was arrested at the drug deal earlier that day) are held immaterial. The opinion infers power to control from residence and does not separately analyse intention or knowledge of the guns. | firearm-in-bedroom-of-shared-residence | Both weapons were found in a bedroom on the first floor of the residence. The .357 magnum was discovered in the bed area, leaning up against the back of the headboard. The .9 millimeter was recovered from a dresser drawer along with an additional magazine of ammunition.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [3994:4264] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.The search revealed, in addition to the firearms, a number of Kitchen’s possessions — his El Rukn bracelet, bills and papers bearing his name and various articles of men’s clothing.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [8171:8352] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.In many of the recorded drug conversations with Kitchen, agents had reached him by calling the telephone number at that address. According to the government, Kitchen had stated that he lived at that address. Agents in fact saw Kitchen at that address on numerous occasions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [7897:8170] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.Kitchen argues that he in fact lived with his mother in Robbins, Illinois, and only visited Williams occasionally.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [8492:8606] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.It is not material, contrary to Kitchen’s assertions, that he was incarcerated at the time the agents actually seized the guns.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [9059:9186] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.The fact that Williams, too, had access to the firearms fails to negate the inference that Kitchen did as well.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [10186:10297] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.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 object, either directly or through others....Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [7417:7650] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.If he in fact resided at Williams’s home, then he had the power to exercise control over the two firearms.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [9351:9457] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.The jury might have determined that he lived at the residence and occupied the bedroom where the guns were located. Under these circumstances, we believe that Kitchen constructively possessed the guns in question.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [10513:10726] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.Because the evidence established that Kitchen resided in the home in which the police located the firearms, it was sufficient to support Kitchen’s conviction for the possession of a firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [27121:27311] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5. |
| Hernandez v. Holder — 592 F.3d 681 (2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009 — satisfied · conceded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | satisfied Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits basis: conceded; claim: (g)(1); count: Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a); theory: categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): substantive elements; subject: count=Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a); theory=categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): substantive elements Same concession; the opinion says nothing about how or what the petitioner possessed. | categorical-match/state-felon-in-possession-offense | TPC § 46.04(a) has two elements that are relevant to this decision: (1) prior felony conviction and (2) possession, of a firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [13683:13812] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f.Nieto concedes in his brief that TPC § 46.04(a)’s two elements correspond with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l)'s first two elements.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [13963:14085] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f. |
| United States v. Cochran — 683 F.3d 1314 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural claim: (g)(1); count: count one (ammunition in a bedroom dresser drawer); jury acquittal, not reviewed; theory: constructive possession inferred from control of the premises (jury instruction common to the ammunition and drug counts); subject: count=count one (ammunition in a bedroom dresser drawer); jury acquittal, not reviewed; theory=constructive possession inferred from control of the premises (jury instruction common to the ammunition and drug counts) Not a 922(g) ruling. The court disapproves (but finds non-prejudicial) an instruction that "constructive possession also occurs if a person exercises ownership, dominion, or control over a thing or premises concealing the thing": premises control only permits an inference, and the knowledge/intention requirement must not be dropped. The instruction governed count one as well (the jury asked whether it applied to "knowingly possess" in count one), but the jury acquitted on that count and the sufficiency holding concerns only the drugs. The fact lines are trial evidence bearing on the ammunition; no court weighed them for 922(g). | contraband-in-residence-defendant-has-key-to | Inside the house, authorities found ammunition in a dresser drawer in one of the bedrooms;Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [1660:1750] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.Witt testified that he searched Cochran and found in Cochran’s pocket a key that unlocked the door of the residence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [4364:4480] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.He also obtained Cochran’s driver’s license, which reflects that Cochran’s address is 116, rather than 110, Lucille Avenue.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [4481:4604] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.The jury’s decision to convict Cochran of the drug charges but acquit him of the ammunition charges demonstrates an understanding of that instruction, given that the ammunition was hidden in a bedroom dresser drawer while the drugs were located in plain sight in the converted garage and present in common areas of the home.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [14590:14914] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.We have indicated that the essence of constructive possession is the power to control the contraband itself and that control of the premises simply permits an inference of that power.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [12451:12634] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.Such a juxtaposition could create an inference that constructive possession, as defined by the government’s instruction, lacks an intentionality requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [11784:11941] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.In conclusion, although we disapprove of the constructive possession instruction given to the jury, we do not find that under the circumstances of this particular case it misled the jury or prejudiced Cochran.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [21190:21399] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c. |
| United States v. Gilliam — 934 F.3d 854 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Actual or constructive possession | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: Rico Gilliam; count: second § 922(g)(1) count -- possession of the same Glock at Bailey's apartment on November 6, 2014; subject: party=Rico Gilliam; count=second § 922(g)(1) count -- possession of the same Glock at Bailey's apartment on November 6, 2014 Sufficiency of the second possession, decided as the first step of the multiplicity argument. The first possession (the shooting at Jeffrey's apartment) was admitted and has no block. | gun hidden under attic insulation of another person's apartment during a police standoff; defendant emerged covered in drywall dust | When Detective Bray asked Bailey if Gilliam had a gun, she said that he did.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [7229:7305] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.When Gilliam eventually surrendered by coming out of the apartment, he had drywall dust and insulation on him.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [7306:7416] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.In the attic, officers found a handgun-the same handgun used to shoot Scrivo-underneath some insulation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [3007:3111] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.Additionally, the government introduced Gilliam's phone call to Calvillo from jail, in which he instructed Calvillo to take responsibility for possessing the gun.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [7576:7738] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.He was unarmed and coated with drywall and insulation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [2591:2645] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.The government presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Gilliam possessed the gun at Bailey's apartment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [6848:6986] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb. |
| United States v. Gilliam — 934 F.3d 854 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Actual or constructive possession | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: Rico Gilliam; count: the uncharged interim between the October 17 shooting at Jeffrey's apartment and the November 6 arrest (continuous-possession / multiplicity argument); subject: party=Rico Gilliam; count=the uncharged interim between the October 17 shooting at Jeffrey's apartment and the November 6 arrest (continuous-possession / multiplicity argument) Here it is the DEFENDANT who asserts possession (continuous, so that the two counts merge); the court finds no constructive possession during the interim, which is why two counts stand. | gun left with a third party who carried it elsewhere; no instruction, no knowledge of its whereabouts, no dominion over either apartment | Constructive possession means that a person "has ownership, dominion or control over the [firearm] itself, or dominion over the premises in which the [firearm] is concealed ."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [8766:8941] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.When he left Jeffrey's apartment, he gave no instruction for the gun's transport or disposition.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [9238:9334] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.There are no facts in the record to demonstrate that Gilliam knew where the gun would be after leaving Jeffrey's apartment or controlled how it would arrive to any new location.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [9335:9512] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.The evidence places Gilliam in possession of the same firearm in different locations and on different days with the weapon in someone else's (Jeffrey's) exclusive possession for at least some period of time in the interim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [9935:10157] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.Gilliam drew a .40 caliber Glock Model 23 from his waistband and fired three times.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [985:1068] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.Gilliam did not constructively possess the firearm after leaving it at Jeffrey's because he had no dominion over Jeffrey's apartment. Gilliam also had no dominion over Bailey's apartment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [10282:10469] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb. |
| United States v. Kimble — 142 F.4th 308 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · conceded (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: conceded; claim: (g)(1) Admitted by plea; not reviewed on appeal. | control | As Kimble fled, officers observed him discard a handgun from his waistband. The officers caught up, arrested Kimble, and recovered the gun.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/308; Unicode character offsets [2429:2568] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3ad9f2ba17f1e40b90ceae5e47c6bd323001ae5f9267eeaa22294306e0765460.Kimble then pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/308; Unicode character offsets [3240:3307] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3ad9f2ba17f1e40b90ceae5e47c6bd323001ae5f9267eeaa22294306e0765460. |
| Old Chief v. United States — 519 U.S. 172 (1997) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (g)(1) Arrest after a fracas involving at least one gunshot; the jury convicted; possession is not reviewed. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Small v. United States — 544 U.S. 385 (2005) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) After release Small bought a gun from a Pennsylvania dealer and pleaded guilty; possession was not in dispute. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Hayes — 555 U.S. 415 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md)) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(9) Officers found a rifle in Hayes's home on a consent search and learned of other recent firearms; three possession counts; not contested in this opinion. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Constructive possession means that a person "has ownership, dominion or control over the [firearm] itself, or dominion over the premises in which the [firearm] is concealed ."
United States v. Gilliam — 934 F.3d 854 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 (18usc922: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
Constructive possession means that a person "has ownership, dominion or control over the [firearm] itself, or dominion over the premises in which the [firearm] is concealed ."Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0854-01; Unicode character offsets [8766:8941] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e08976bfab5ab7797deea351bac1ee5e91126d5ca3cef2eee7c97cb3ac373bb.