de novo to determine whether they misstated the law or misled the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party. United States v. Grigsby, 111 F.3d 806, 814 (11th Cir.1997). Counsel’s objections to proposed instructions should be sufficient to give the district court the chance to correct errors before the case goes to the jury. Id. We will reverse the district court because of an erroneous jury instruction only if we are left with a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations. United States v. Fulford, 267 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir.2001). Pursuant to the law of this Circuit, exclusive control over the object is not required in order to establish constructive possession. See United States v. Knight, 705 F.2d 432, 433 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Leonard, 138 F.3d
holding that k no wing possession can be demonstrated by proof of either actual or constructive possession holding when drugs are found on premises exclusive control provides significant proof of constructive possession holding that constructive possession need not be exclusive but may be shared by others holding that the phrase possession or custody in  5225b requires actual and not merely constructive possession recognizing theory of constructive possession