USA v. Garrison Harris, No. 08-14553 (11th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 08-14553 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JULY 8, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D.C. Docket No. 07-00315-CR-J-20-TEM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GARRISON HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (July 8, 2009) Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Garrison Harris appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Harris argues that the government failed to prove that he knowingly possessed the firearm. We affirm. We review de novo the denial of a judgment of acquittal. See United States v. Evans, 473 F.3d 1115, 1118 (11th Cir. 2006). To establish that a person is a felon in possession of a firearm, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a convicted felon who knowingly possessed a firearm and that the firearm affected interstate commerce. See United States v. Glover, 431 F.3d 744, 748 (11th Cir. 2005). The possession may be constructive, in which case the government must prove the defendant exercised either ownership, dominion, or control over the firearm. United States v. Molina, 443 F.3d 824, 829 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Ferg, 504 F.2d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1974)). The district court did not err by denying Harris s motion for a judgment of acquittal. Harris admitted to the arresting officers that he knew a firearm was in the car and he had attempted to conceal the firearm behind the passenger seat. Harris s statement established that he knowingly possessed the weapon. Harris s conviction is AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.