Tаmara Jolene Miller was convicted of weapons offenses, including being a felon in possession of firearms. The district court 1 applied a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(l)(A) for possession of three to seven firearms. Miller appeals the enhancеment. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
A jury convicted Miller of possessing an unrеgistered sawed-off shotgun; possessing the sawed-off shotgun and a handgun, both with obliterated serial numbers; and being a felon in possession of both guns. Before trial, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives discovered that five other firearms were held at Miller’s directiоn by two brothers — one of whom was arrested with Miller when the shotgun and handgun were discovered. The brothers took possession of the five other guns in еarly 2007. Before then, *753 they were held by another friend of Miller’s. Miller asked the brothers to take the guns from the friend; she did not handle the guns during the transfer.
At sentencing, an ATF agent testified about seizing the guns, which originally belonged to Miller’s fаther. The brothers understood they were holding the guns for Miller. The brothers said thаt the guns were there “essentially to be passed along to [Miller’s] son whеn he became old enough.” One brother expressed interest in buying one of the guns from Miller. The guns were in a locked cabinet at the brothers’ hоuse; the key to the cabinet was also there. Before giving the guns to the ATF agent, one brother asked to call Miller (but surrendered the guns without cаlling her). The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Miller constructively possessed between three and sеven firearms while a felon.
This court reviews the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for clear error.
United States v. Rollins,
Miller argues the district court erred in finding she constructively possessed the five guns because her directions did not amount to the type of control required for an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(l)(A). Miller is eligible for this enhancement if she possessеd a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the statute banning possession of firearms by felons.
See United States v. Pate,
Miller had sufficient control, ownership, and dominion over thе firearms for them to be considered in her possession under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(l)(A). Miller arranged for the transfer of the guns to the brothers. The brothers considered thе guns to be Miller’s and not theirs. One brother wanted to call Miller before giving the firearms to the ATF agent, and the other desired to purchase one of the guns from her. Possession exercised through another is still possession: a felon may not “have the firearms held in trust for him by a third party.”
United States v. Felici,
Miller maintains that the guns were held not for her, but for her son. She points out that
Felici
states only that a felon may not “have the firearms held in trust
for him.” Felici,
The judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. The Honorablе Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
. On the facts here, this court need not address the possibility of a trust (or other con *754 veyance to a third party) of firearms, where the felon relinquishes control, ownership, and dominion over the firearms.