842, 846-47 (8th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 463, 163 L.Ed.2d 352 (2005). “Constructive possession of the firearm is established if the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located, or control, ownership, or dominion over the firea ught to the truck would not have left the house if he had not asked for it. The fact that Wells could control the delivery of the Mauser to him is sufficient evidence that he had dominion and control over that firearm. Finally, Officer Sedlmayr found the Mauser in the truck that Wells was driving, and Wells knew that the Mauser was in the truck. This evidence also would allow a reasonable jury to find that Wells had constructive possession of the Mauser. See United States v. Maloney, 466 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Because a reasonable jury could find beyond a
holding that the court must consider the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third partys means of infringement holding that to be convicted under dwi statute a person must be driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle but motion of the vehicle is not necessary holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that defendant had knowledge of firearm in close proximity to him when he was driving the car for the cars owner who was a passenger holding that the defendant possessed a stolen automobile in which he was found sitting not even driving holding that a defendant exercised control over a firearm that was found in a vehicle he was driving