United States v. Williamson

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60193
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY BRIAN WILLIAMSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(2:04-CR-26-ALL-1)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Timothy Brian Williamson appeals his conviction for possession
of an unregistered firearm (sawed-off shotgun) in violation of the
National Firearms Act, specifically 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a), 5861(d),
and 5871. The denial of Williamson’s judgment-of-acquittal motion
is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Izydore, 167 F.3d 213,
219 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Payne, 99 F.3d 1273, 1278
(5th Cir. 1996).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Williamson claims the evidence of his dominion and control
over the sawed-off shotgun was too tenuous for the jury to convict
him of possession because the firearm was not in his truck or, if
it was, others had access to the truck.
To convict based on constructive possession, the Government
must present “some evidence supporting at least a plausible
inference that the defendant had knowledge of and access to the
weapon”. United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir.
1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1198 (1994). According to an
Officer’s testimony, Williamson asserted ownership of both the
truck and an “old shotgun” in it. When the Officer went to the
location Williamson had given for his truck (in the woods), the
Officer saw the shotgun through the truck’s back window; the
firearm was visible between the two front seats. Even if others
had access to, or had previously driven, the truck, this is
sufficient to support a finding of constructive possession of the
shotgun by Williamson. See id. The jury was entitled to credit
the Officer’s testimony over testimony by defense witnesses that
the firearm was not in the truck but in the woods.
Williamson also claims there was insufficient evidence to
prove he knew the firearm’s barrel was less than 18 inches in
length. The Government was required to prove that Williamson knew
of the features of his weapon that made it a “firearm” under §
5845, specifically, that it was a shotgun having a barrel of less

-- 2 of 3 --

3
than 18 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26
inches. § 5845(a); see also United States v. Reyna, 130 F.3d 104,
109 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1033 (1998).
The shotgun was in evidence and could be inspected by the
jury. Its barrel was 10 inches long and its overall length was
only 16 and one-half inches long. Such characteristics would be
readily apparent and externally visible. (“When a shotgun’s length
is immediately apparent and externally visible to anyone observing
it, the government’s ability to prove knowledge should not be an
onerous task.” Reyna, 130 F.3d at 109 n.6.) A rational jury could
have concluded that Williamson knew of the characteristics of his
weapon that made it a “firearm” subject to registration under
§ 5845(a)(1) and (2). See id.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --