With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 27 Va.App. 505, 509-10, 500 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1998) (stating that “fact finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to conclude that the accused is lying to conceal his guilt”). The defendant’s admitted ownership of some of the implements and William Hagy’s statement of ownership with the defendant of the two crowbars and pliers in the cargo area provided sufficient evidence for the fact finder to conclude that the defendant and William Hagy exercised joint dominion and control over those tools found throughout the car. See Carter v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 317, 323, 163 S.E.2d 589, 594 (1968) (stating that “exclusive possession includes joint possession by two or more persons”); Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 1, 13, 492 S.E.2d 826, 832 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Josephs v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 87,

A: holding that the district court eired in applying the firearm enhancement where the government presented no evidence that the defendant possessed the gun or knew that the gun was located in the bottom of his codefendants backpack
B: holding sufficient connection or nexus existed between the defendant and a gun in a case of nonexclusive possession because the gun was found under the defendants seat was visible and retrievable by defendant and a magazine of ammunition was hidden in the seat cover
C: holding that it was error to admit into evidence a gun purchased by the defendant which was not connected with the charged crimes
D: holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun
D.