Motion for judgment of acquittal; Sufficiency of the evidence; FIP; 18 USC §§ 922(g)(1) & 924; Actual & constructive possession of a firearm; Constructive possession of Schedule II substances with the intent to distribute; 21 USC § 841(a)(1); Knowing possession a firearm “in furtherance of” a drug trafficking crime; Evidence of a prior conviction; FRE 404(b); Conflict of interest; Whether the district court should have conducted a post-verdict juror interview; FRE 606(b)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant-London on his drug and firearm charges, and that the district court did not err by admitting evidence of a prior conviction under FRE 404(b) or by not conducting a post-verdict interview of a juror. A jury convicted London of FIP, knowingly and intentionally possessing multiple Schedule II substances with the intent to distribute, and knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He argued that the government failed to establish the firearm charges because there was no evidence that he “knowingly possessed” the recovered gun. But the court agreed with the government that there was both actual and constructive possession. As to actual possession, the “discovery of the gun in open view on the driver’s seat that London had vacated less than two minutes before shows that he had immediate access to and control of the weapon.” Constructive possession was also established where he had “dominion and control” over the car where the gun was discovered. The constructive possession analysis also applied to his claim that he did not knowingly possess the drugs. The large amount of cash and two cell phones that were found on his person also supported possession with intent to distribute. The court further held that there was sufficient evidence that London possessed the firearm in furtherance of that crime where the gun was “strategically located” on the driver’s seat for easy access and was loaded. Next, it agreed with the district court that the defense “opened the door” as to London’s prior conviction when it asked a witness why he believed that the defendant may be armed. The court rejected London’s conflict of interest claim. Finally, he claimed the district court should have conducted a post-verdict interview of a juror. The court concluded the district court “did not abuse its discretion by invoking Rule 606(b) to deny London’s motion.” Affirmed.