United States v. Molette , 201 F. App'x 253 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 29, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-30768 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHON MOLETTE, also known as Sean Molette,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:03-CR-10027-ALL
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shon Molette was convicted of distribution of crack cocaine,
possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, and possession
with intent to distribute crack cocaine. He appeals only the
conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack
cocaine, for which he was sentenced to 240 months of
imprisonment.
Molette argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient
to sustain the jury’s verdict. Specifically, he contends that he
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-30768
-2-
did not have constructive possession of the drugs at issue
because they were found outside of his home.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Government, showed that Molette was the sole occupant of the home
and that the side yards of the property were enclosed by
chainlink fences. Molette conducted most of his drug
transactions in the rear yard of the home. We conclude that
there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to have found,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that Molette had constructive
possession over the crack cocaine found in a black bag outside of
his home. See United States v. Romero-Cruz, 201 F.3d 374, 378
(5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Onick, 889 F.2d 1425, 1429 (5th
Cir. 1989).
Molette concedes that there was some circumstantial evidence
of his guilty knowledge. Molette contends, however, that such
evidence was insufficient to prove his knowledge of the presence
of the drugs given testimony that, when law enforcement officers
arrived at his home, he had already been arrested elsewhere and
that several individuals fled from the area surrounding his home.
Molette presented his theory, that a third party had stashed the
black bag on his property, to the jury. An agent from the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) testified, however, that drug dealers
often hide their drugs outside their home in the hope that police
will not discover the drugs during a search of the home. The
jury accepted the DEA agent’s testimony and rejected Molette’s
explanation of events. We will not disturb that credibility
No. 05-30768
-3-
determination. See United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223, 240
(5th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.