## Facts

- A pawn shop in Wichita Falls, Texas was robbed, and multiple firearms were stolen, including a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun.
- The robber, Chris Sanchez, told police where another stolen firearm could be found; officers recovered the Mossberg shotgun from a shed on property associated with Cristobal Meza, a convicted felon.
- Officers searched Meza’s residence and found two boxes of 12-gauge Winchester shotgun shells; eight shells missing from one box matched shells loaded into the recovered shotgun.
- Items in the residence (including personal documents, financial records, and photographs) linked Meza to the home.
- Meza was indicted for (1) felon in possession of a firearm and (2) felon in possession of ammunition, both under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
- A plea agreement capping exposure at 120 months (by dismissing the ammunition count) was rejected by the district court after the PSR calculated a substantially higher Guidelines range, and the case proceeded to trial.
- At trial, Sanchez gave conflicting accounts: he first said he sold the shotgun to Meza, then testified he hid it on Meza’s property without Meza’s knowledge; the government introduced Sanchez’s prior inconsistent statement with a limiting instruction.
- The jury convicted Meza on both counts; the district court imposed two consecutive 120-month sentences (240 months total).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Meza constructively possessed the firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
2. Whether admitting Sanchez’s prior inconsistent statement (that he sold the shotgun to Meza) was an abuse of discretion.
3. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument constituted misconduct that denied Meza a fair trial.
4. Whether consecutive sentences for simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under § 922(g)(1) violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions, holding the evidence was sufficient for a rational juror to find constructive possession of both the shotgun and ammunition.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Sanchez’s prior inconsistent statement for impeachment, particularly in light of limiting instructions.
- The court found no reversible prosecutorial misconduct because the challenged closing remarks were within permissible advocacy and did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
- The court vacated the consecutive sentencing structure and remanded for resentencing because simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition constitutes a single punishable offense under § 922(g)(1) for double-jeopardy purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient if, viewing it in the light most favorable to the government, a rational juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Constructive possession under § 922(g)(1) may be shown by ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband or over the premises where it is found; joint occupancy requires additional evidence linking the defendant to the contraband.
- A prior inconsistent statement may be admitted to impeach a witness, and limiting instructions can restrict the jury’s use of that statement to credibility rather than substantive proof.
- Prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal only when it so infects the trial with unfairness as to deny due process.
- Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, a defendant may not receive multiple punishments for a single offense; in the Fifth Circuit, simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon constitutes one offense under § 922(g)(1), barring consecutive sentences for the same continuous possession.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld Meza’s felon-in-possession convictions based on constructive possession and affirmed the trial court’s evidentiary and closing-argument rulings, but it vacated the consecutive sentences because simultaneous firearm-and-ammunition possession under § 922(g)(1) permits only one punishment under double-jeopardy doctrine, requiring resentencing.


United States v. Meza, 701 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2012)