IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50377

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN C. MILLIKIN, III, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas (SA-96-CR-327-1)

January 7, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted defendant John C. Millikin, III, for being a

felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of

(g)(1). Millikin raises a sufficiency of the evidence challenge

to his conviction. He argues that the evidence at trial

demonstrated that his father was in joint occupancy of the house in

which the weapons attributed to Millikin were found. He also

contends that his father was the owner and sole possessor of the

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. firearms. Accordingly, he asserts that the evidence was

insufficient to prove that he was either in constructive or actual

possession of the firearms.

Normally, the government may establish constructive possession

where the defendant exercises “ownership, dominion, or control over

the contraband itself or dominion or control over the premises in

which the contraband is concealed.” United States v. Mergerson,

(5th Cir. 1993). In joint occupancy situations,

however, mere control or dominion over the place in which the

contraband is found is insufficient to establish constructive

possession. See

Rather, in such situations, we require

evidence “supporting at least a plausible inference that the

defendant had knowledge of and access to the weapon or contraband.”

As this is a sufficiency of the evidence challenge following

a jury conviction, we review the evidence in the light most

favorable to the government. See United States v. Ivy,

(5th Cir. 1992). Here, there was ample evidence offered

at trial to indicate that Millikin in fact was the sole occupant of

the residence in which the guns were found. Sole occupancy and

dominion over the house in which the weapons were found would

support a finding of constructive possession. See United States v.

Ybarra,

(5th Cir. 1995). Alternatively, the

government offered evidence that Millikin had knowledge of the

weapons in his house, and at least one of the firearms was found

2 next to his bed. The jury could reasonably have concluded that

even if this were a joint occupancy situation, Millikin had

knowledge of and ready access to the contraband. See Mergerson,

. Thus, there was adequate circumstantial indicia of

Millikin’s possession to support his conviction. See

AFFIRMED.

3