Riсky Wayne Meads was charged with possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A jury found Meads guilty, and the district court 1 sentenced Meads to 252 months of imprisonment. On appеal, Meads challenges the district court’s denial of his request to submit a “mere presence” instruction to the jury. We affirm.
I. Background
Meads was tried before a jury in May 2006. The government cаlled multiple witnesses who testified to Meads’s possession and use of a firearm.
Jamie Garza, Meads’s brother-in-law, testified that on November 21, 2005, he, Meads, and Donald Pratt went hunting. Hе testified Meads possessed a rifle and shot a deer with that rifle while the three men were riding in Pratt’s car. Garza identified the rifle possessed and used by Meads.
Meads utilized a number of methods to impeach Garza. Through cross examination Meads implied Garza had an incentive to lie because of a cooperation agreеment with the government, through which Garza hoped to receive a lesser sentence on his own federal firearm charge. Meads brought out existing animosity between Meаds and Garza, and highlighted Garza’s prior convictions and other alleged criminal conduct. Meads also cross examined Garza regarding Garza’s use of illegal drugs.
Pratt testified, as well. Pratt also testified Meads shot a deer from the ear on November 21. Like Garza, Pratt identified the rifle possessed and used by Meads. Meads also attempted to impeach Pratt. Meads brought out on cross examination Pratt’s outstanding warrants arising from the events on November 21, and the fact that Pratt had left the jurisdiction without appеaring at the state court hearings arising from the events on November 21. Meads highlighted Pratt’s prior arrests and use of illegal drugs.
Jade Greer also testified. Greer testified that on the morning of November 21, he heard a high-powered rifle shot and then saw a car drive past his father’s home. Greer and his father, who also testified at the trial, believed a deer might have been shot from the car, so Greer went to see if he could find the deer. Greer then encountered Meads and Garza with a dead deer. Greer testified Mеads stated the deer belonged to him and that he shot the deer.
During the course of the trial, Meads requested the district court include a “mere presence” instruction in the final instructions to the jury. Meads proposed the following:
The mere presence of Ricky Wayne Meads at a location where the gun was used or found is not sufficient tо establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Meads knowingly possessed the gun as charged in the indictment.
The court rejected the proposed instruction, noting “there’s not a sufficient foundation to establish mere presence.”
The final instructions included an instruction outlining the elements of the crime of possessing a firearm as a felon. This instruсtion stated that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “knowingly possessed a firearm.” The term “possession” was defined at length in the instruсtions:
*601 The law recognizes several kinds of possession. A person may have actual possession or constructive possession. A person may have sole оr joint possession.
A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing, at a given time, is then in actual possession of it.
A person who, although not in actual possession, has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or through another person or pеrsons, is then in constructive possession of it.
If one person alone has actual or constructive possession of a thing, possession is sole. If two or more persons share actual or constructive possession of a thing, possession is joint.
Whenever the word “possession” has been used in these instructions it includes actual as wеll as constructive possession and also sole as well as joint possession.
Meads did not object to this definition of possession. The instructions also addressed faсtors the jurors may weigh in considering witness testimony, as well as a specific instruction covering Garza’s cooperation with the government and the potential for him to rеceive a more lenient sentence based upon his cooperation.
The jury found Meads guilty. Meads was sentenced to 252 months’ imprisonment, and this appeal followed.
II. Discussion
We review the rejection of a defendant’s proposed instruction for abuse of discretion.
2
United States v. Gladney,
Meads timely requested the mere presence instruction, which correctly stated the law. However, the evidence at trial did not support the instruction and therefore the district court’s rejection of the instruction was not an abuse of discretion.
See, e.g., United States v. Ellerman,
Meads argues, in essence, that through impeaching the witnesses against him, he established evidence sufficient to warrant a mere presence instruction. We find no support for this proposition. Credibility is always an issue for the jury to determine.
See, e.g., United States v. Osuna-Zepeda,
Even if one were to conclude the evidence supported a mere presence instruction, it still was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to reject the requested instruction. In
Serrano-Lopez,
this court held that a mere presence instruction was unnecessary because it “would have duplicated the instructions outlining the elements of the offense, the definition of possession, and the burden оf proof.”
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
. Mеads suggests this court should apply de novo review. While "[w]e review
de novo
a district court’s decision whether there is sufficient evidence to submit an affirmative defense to a jury,”
United States v. Hudson,