JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Juvenal Ambriz appeals his conviction of a single count of distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
I.
On the evening of January 5, 2012, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Agent Jason Cloutier went to Jaguars Gold Club in an undercover capacity.1 At about 2:00 a.m., Agent Cloutier approached a male patron in the club and indicated that he was looking for some cocaine. The patron sold Agent Cloutier two small baggies of cocaine in exchange for $40.00. Agent Cloutier noted that the patron was wearing a white hooded sweatshirt and had a thin goatee and small teardrop tattoo on his face. About an hour later, Agent Cloutier and his partner saw the patron get into the passenger seat of a white Chevy Blazer.
Agent Cloutier relayed this information to other officers, who initiated a traffic stop shortly after the Blazer left Jaguars. The officers observed a man with a thin goatee, teardrop tattoo, and white hooded sweatshirt in the passenger seat. Upon inspecting the man's driver's license, the officers identified him as Juvenal Ambriz.2 A consensual search of Ambriz's person yielded six baggies of similar manufacture, contents, and quantity to the baggies Agent Cloutier had purchased. The deputies seized the cocaine and released Ambriz to preserve the integrity of the undercover operation.
A grand jury indicted Ambriz with a single count of distribution of a controlled substance in violation of § 841(a)(1). The case proceeded to trial on May 16, 2012. Two of the district court's rulings are relevant here. First, the district court denied Ambriz's request for a jury instruction that simple possession of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) is a lesser-included offense of distribution of a controlled substance in violation of § 841(a)(1). Second, the district court denied Ambriz's motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding the six baggies of cocaine found on Ambriz's person at the time of his arrest. Ultimately, the jury found Ambriz guilty of distribution of a controlled substance. The district court sentenced Ambriz to 18 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Ambriz timely appealed.
II.
On appeal, Ambriz argues that (1) the district court erred when it denied him a lesser-included-offense instruction; and (2) the district court's admission into evidence of the baggies of cocaine violated Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We address each argument in turn.
A.
Ambriz must satisfy a two-pronged inquiry to demonstrate that he was entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction.3 See United States v. Cooper, 714 F.3d 873, 879 (5th Cir.2013); see also United States v. Browner, 889 F.2d 549, 550-51 (5th Cir.1989) (Browner I) (citing Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 716, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 103 L.Ed.2d 734 (1989)). First, he must show that the elements of simple possession are a "subset" of the elements of distribution. Cooper, 714 F.3d at 879. Second, he must show that, based on the evidence presented at trial, a rational jury could have acquitted him of distribution and convicted him of simple possession. Id. We review the first prong de novo and the second under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250, 256 (5th Cir.2007).
Our analysis starts and ends with the first prong. In accordance with the Supreme Court's guidance in Schmuck, we employ an elements-based test to determine whether the elements of one offense are a subset of the elements of another. See United States v. Browner, 937 F.2d 165, 168, 172 (5th Cir.1991) (Browner II) (interpreting Schmuck to adopt a "strict statutory elements test"). Thus, we compare "the statutory elements of the offenses in question, and not ... [the] conduct proved at trial" to determine whether one offense is a subset of the other.4 United States v. Estrada-Fernandez, 150 F.3d 491, 494 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 716-17, 109 S.Ct. 1443). In performing this test, we construe the relevant criminal statutes in accordance with ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. See Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 260-61, 120 S.Ct. 2159, 147 L.Ed.2d 203 (2000). For the elements of the lesser offense to be a subset of the charged offense, it must be "impossible to commit the [charged offense] without first having committed the lesser." Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 719, 109 S.Ct. 1443 (citations omitted).
Here, the offenses at issue are identical except in the obvious respect: one requires possession and the other requires distribution. Compare United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1431 (5th Cir.1995) (explaining that the elements of simple possession of a controlled substance are "(1) the knowing possession (2) of a controlled substance"), with United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 789 (5th Cir.1996) (recognizing that the elements of distribution of a controlled substance are "that the defendant (1) knowingly (2) distributed (3) the controlled substance"). Thus, the central issue is whether one must necessarily possess a controlled substance in order to distribute it.
The answer is no. Our precedent demonstrates that "possession" and "distribution," though overlapping, are distinct concepts.5 "Possession" can be either actual or constructive. See United States v. Galvan-Garcia, 872 F.2d 638, 640 (5th Cir.1989). Constructive possession is the "ownership, dominion, or control over ... contraband, or ... dominion over the premises in which the contraband is found." United States v. Hinojosa, 349 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir.2003) (citations omitted "Distribution," on the other hand, includes acts "in furtherance of transfer or sale, such as arranging or supervising the delivery." United States v. Suarez, 155 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.1998) (citing United States v. Lechuga, 888 F.2d 1472, 1478 (5th Cir.1989)).6 We have held that distribution "is broad enough to include acts that traditionally perhaps would have been defined as mere aiding and abetting." United States v. Oquendo, 505 F.2d 1307, 1310 n. 1 (5th Cir.1975). Thus, a defendant can engage in acts of distribution without actually or constructively possessing the relevant contraband.
Our holding in United States v. Glenn illustrates this point. There, we upheld a § 841(a) distribution conviction against a defendant who did not possess the contraband at issue:
As discussed above, the testimony of the undercover officer, Delco, combined with the tape recording of the March 18th sale of seven rocks of crack, sufficiently supports that Terry constructively delivered the crack through Glenn by instructing him to sell to Delco. Delco also testified that she paged Terry several times on March 22, 1991, and that she spoke with Anthony Moore and Terry about purchasing another $100 worth of crack. From the last recorded telephone call between Terry and Delco, Delco interpreted Terry's statements to mean that Terry had arranged for someone to sell her the crack because he was very busy at the time. He then put someone else, Byron Rice, on the telephone to speak with her. Rice actually sold Delco the crack later that night and indicated to her that he worked for Terry. This evidence was sufficient to show the constructive delivery of crack by Terry through Rice, thus supporting Terry's distribution conviction.
No. 93-4311, 1994 WL 24871, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 10, 1994) (unpublished but persuasive).7 Similarly, this court has upheld § 841(a) distribution convictions against physicians who have prescribed, but not actually or constructively possessed, the controlled substance at issue. See, e.g., United States v. Rosen, 582 F.2d 1032, 1034-36 (5th Cir.1978) (upholding a distribution conviction against a physician who advised his patients to fill prescriptions at different drug stores); cf. United States v. Harrison, 651 F.2d 353, 354-55 (5th Cir.1981) (upholding a distribution conviction against a physician who "would make up fictitious names for prescriptions, or ask the `patient' to supply him with names to be used" at the pharmacy).
Moreover, we recently reached the same conclusion in a different context. In United States v. Woerner, we evaluated whether possession of child pornography is a lesser-included offense of distribution of child pornography. 709 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2013). As here, the central question was whether distribution necessarily required possession. We said no:
A defendant need not possess child pornography to distribute it, [United States v. Chiaradio, 684 F.3d 265, 280 (1st Cir.2012)] ("One can envision circumstances in which an individual could be guilty of distribution without ever obtaining possession of (or even coming into contact with) the contraband. For example, the broker of a deal between a person who has child pornography and a person who wishes to procure it may be guilty of distribution but not guilty of possession."), and, vice versa, a defendant need not distribute child pornography to possess it. United States v. Goluba, 672 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir.2012) ("[T]he forensic analysis of [the defendant]'s computers `revealed that [he] did not distribute his collection of child pornography.'"). For that reason, we join the First and Seventh Circuits in holding that possession of child pornography is not the lesser-included offense of distribution of child pornography....
Id. at 539 (internal citations omitted).
For all of these reasons, we join the Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits in concluding that simple possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 844(a) is not a lesser-included offense of distribution of a controlled substance in violation of § 841(a)(1). See United States v. Colon, 268 F.3d 367, 377 (6th Cir.2001) ("We agree with the reasoning of [other circuit] courts and now join them in holding that simple possession is not a lesser-included offense of distribution of a controlled substance.... [I]t is possible to commit the "distribution" element of the crime without possessing the drugs themselves."); United States v. Barrientos, 758 F.2d 1152, 1158 (7th Cir.1985) ("The judge in this case found that there was insufficient evidence on which to base an instruction on possession. This finding accords with the general understanding that possession is not a necessary element of a distribution charge."); United States v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269, 1296-97 (10th Cir.2000), judgment vacated on other grounds, 531 U.S. 1033, 121 S.Ct. 621, 148 L.Ed.2d 531 (2000) ("[I]t does not follow that simple possession is a lesser included offense of distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).... Although it may be unusual for a person to distribute a controlled substance without at least momentarily possessing the controlled substance, it is not impossible.").8 Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Ambriz's request for a lesser-included offense jury instruction.9
B.
Ambriz next challenges the district court's admission of six baggies of cocaine into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.10 We review alleged Rule 403 violations for clear abuses of discretion. United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir.2010). A district court may "exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of ... unfair prejudice." Fed. R.Evid. 403. The standard of review for an alleged Rule 403 violation is "especially high and requires a clear abuse of discretion for reversal." Williams, 620 F.3d at 492 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Any error in admitting such evidence is subject to harmless error review, and reversal is not required unless there is a `reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction.'" Id. at 492 (quoting United States v. Mendoza-Medina, 346 F.3d 121, 127 (5th Cir.2003)).
In the instant case, two deputies found six baggies of cocaine on Ambriz's person. Both the baggies themselves and their contents were similar to those Agent Cloutier purchased from Ambriz on that same evening. Considering that Ambriz's identity was at issue, any prejudice attributable to these baggies is outweighed by their probative ability to link Ambriz to Agent Cloutier's purchase. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted them into evidence.
III.
For the above-stated reasons, we AFFIRM.
