PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Keith Johnson appeals the revocation of supervised release (“SR”) *2 Case: 15-31024 Document: 00513725448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016

No. 15-31024

following his guilty plea to possessing a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. He contends that the district court abused its discre- tion in revoking SR because the evidence was insufficient to prove that he pos- sessed certain drugs and drug paraphernalia.

A district court may revoke a term of SR on a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a condition of SR. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Hinson , 429 F.3d 114, 118-19 (5th Cir. 2005). A revocation of SR is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. McCor- mick , 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995).

“[P]ossession may be actual or constructive.” United States v. Mergerson , 4 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir. 1993). This court has “adopted a commonsense, fact- specific approach” for deciding whether constructive possession has been estab- lished and has found it in joint-occupancy cases only where some evidence per- mits “a plausible inference that the defendant had knowledge of and access to the weapon or contraband.” Id . at 349.

Contrary to Johnson’s assertion, the evidence showed, and the district court articulated the facts that permitted, the plausible inference that Johnson constructively possessed the drugs and paraphernalia, which was the similar modus operandi of hiding the drugs in false-bottom containers. The court’s reasoning focused on the facts supporting the conclusion that Johnson had con- structively possessed the drugs and paraphernalia; Aisha Howard’s credibility was not a factor in the decision. The evidence was sufficient for the court to find that Johnson had constructively possessed, and the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Johnson had violated the terms of SR. See McCor- mick , 54 F.3d at 219; Mergerson , 4 F.3d at 348.

AFFIRMED.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.