United States v. Samora, 954 F.3d 1286

On May 26, 2017, a multi‑agency task force arrested Defendant (Samora) after locating him near a restaurant in a car he had borrowed from his ex‑girlfriend. He fled on foot before capture.
Officers searched the vehicle and found a loaded firearm in the center console and Defendant’s wallet in the driver’s door.
DNA testing showed Defendant’s DNA matched the major profile on the firearm, and the DNA expert testified Defendant likely handled the gun at some point.
Defendant was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession) and convicted by a jury after a trial at which the district court gave a constructive‑possession instruction that omitted the intent‑to‑exercise‑control element.
On appeal Defendant argued (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove possession and (2) the erroneous jury instruction on constructive possession was plain error requiring a new trial.
The Tenth Circuit held the government presented sufficient evidence for constructive possession (DNA + sole occupancy that day), but the omitted intent element was plain error that affected substantial rights—reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession	Govt: DNA major profile on gun + sole occupancy that day = sufficient nexus	Samora: joint occupancy (borrowed car) and lack of direct proof he intended control	Evidence sufficient for constructive possession (DNA + proximity)
Jury instruction omitted intent element for constructive possession	Govt: omitted element was error but evidence still supports conviction	Samora: omission was plain error and affected substantial rights	Omission was plain error; affected rights; reversal and remand for new trial
Whether actual possession verdict cures instructional error	Govt: jury was correctly instructed on actual possession and could have convicted on that theory	Samora: DNA did not prove he actually held the gun on the indictment date	Actual‑possession proof was weak; cannot affirm on that alternate theory

United States v. Benford, 875 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 2017) (constructive possession requires power and intent; plain‑error framework)
United States v. Little, 829 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2016) (strong circumstantial evidence can compel inference of intent)
United States v. Hishaw, 235 F.3d 565 (10th Cir. 2000) (insufficient nexus where gun under passenger seat and only remote prior firearm handling)
United States v. Jameson, 478 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing actual vs constructive possession)
United States v. Simpson, 845 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2017) (plain‑error reversal where intent element omitted despite substantial evidence)
Henderson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1780 (2015) (Supreme Court decision that the law requires intent to exercise control for constructive possession)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (standard for "reasonable probability" in plain‑error review)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omitted element in jury instruction implicates Sixth Amendment jury trial right)
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (general verdicts must be set aside when supported by legally erroneous and valid grounds and the selected ground is unknowable)