FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 10 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 04 81 -WH M-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RONALD BRUNSON, Defend an t-Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: A jury fou ndRo na ldBru ns on gu il ty of be in g afel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( d) (1 ), an d t he di stric t co urtse nt en cedhi m un de r th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (t he “ ACCA”) , 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e), t o apri so n t erm

of 1 80 m on th s. Bru ns on no w app eal s h is co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. Reg ard in g h is co nv ic ti on , he s eek s (1 ) a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on th e gr ou ndth atth e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o c on vi ct , and , alt ern at iv el y , (2) a ne w tri al on th e g ro un d tha t a juro r was sea te d u si ng im pr op er p ro cedur e. He ch al le ng es hi s s en te nc e o n t he gro un d t ha t t he reco rddi d n otest ab li sh hi s el ig ib il it y forsen te nc in g u nd er the ACCA. W e aff irm. I. A di st ric t co urt m

us t g ran t a “

jud gm en t o f acqui tt al of a ny offen se forwhi ch th e ev id en ce i s i ns uf

fic ie ntto su st ai n aco nv ic ti on .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 29 (a). We rev ie w de no vo th e su ffi ci en cy of e vi de nc e to supp ort a c on vi ct io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ort iz , 31 8 F .3d10 30 , 10 36 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). In d oi ng th is , we tak e th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t an d a ccep t al l re as on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof t he jury's ver di ct . Uni te d Sta tes v. C hi ri no s, 11 2 F .3d10 89 , 10 95 (11 th Ci r. 19 97 ). A con vi ct io n i s due to be affi rm edif any rati on al tri er o f fac t co ul d ha ve fou ndth e es se nt ia l el em en ts of t he cri m e b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Uni te d St at es v. Hun t, 18 7 F .3d12 69 , 12 70 (11 thCir . 19 99 ). The reco rdof t he Bru ns on ’s tri al in di cat es th atth e jury hada co ns id erab le am ou ntof e vi de nc e b efo re i t o n wh ic h t o c on vi ct . This ev id en ce i nc lu de d d ire ct 2ey ewit ne ss tes ti m on y fro m po li ce o ffi cers who ob se rv edBru ns on carry in g a fir earm an d re tri ev editfro m

a so fa wh ere h e h adhi d i t. Acco rd in gl y , itis cle ar th atBru ns on is no t en ti tl edto anacqui tt al . II. The on ly m etho d b y

whi ch a pe rs on accu se d o f a fed eral cri m e can ch al le ng e a jury

on th e g ro un d t ha t i t was no t s el ect edin co nf orm ity with t he law is de ta il edin 28 U.S.C. § 1 86 7. 2 8 U.S.C. § 18 67 (e). A de fen da ntcanm ov e to st ay pro ceed in gs or d is m is s t he in di ct m en t ag ai ns t h im on th e g ro un d o f subs ta nt ia l fa il ur e to co m pl y with t he ap pr op ria te pro vi si on s. 2 8 U.S.C. § 18 67 (a). A juro r is no t qua li fie d i f: ( 1) no t a c it iz enof t he Uni te d S ta te s o ve r th e ag e o f 18 ; (2 ) un ab le to read , writ e, an d u nd ers ta ndth e Eng li sh lan gu ag e; (3) un ab le to sp eak th e Eng li sh lan gu ag e; (4) in cap ab le to ren de r sa ti sf act ory servi ce b y

reas on of m en ta l o r ph y si cal in firm it y ; o r (5 ) co nv ic te d i n o r fac in g p en di ng ch arg es in st at e orfed eral co urt p un is habl e b y im pr is on m en t fo r m or e th anon e y ear andciv il rig ht s h av e n otbe enres to red . 28 U.S.C. § 1 86 5( b) . Whe n ju ro rs are n eed ed , th os e qua li fie d s ho ul d b e drawnat r an do m . 28 U.S.C. § 1 86 6( a). No p ers onor cl as s ca n b e d is qu al ifi ed , subjec t t o c ert ai n e xc ep ti on s. 2 8 U.S.C. § 18 66 (c). If th ere i s a s ho rta ge , add it io na l ju ro rs canbe su m m on edin an y

m an ne r or de redby th e co urt t ha t i s n otdi sc riminat ory . 28 U.S.C. § 1 86 6( f). 3In Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma ld on ado , 84 9 F .2d52 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) , U.S. Mar sh al s fu lfi ll eda reque stfor ad di ti on al juro rs by sele ct in g 1 6 p eo pl e worki ng or ot he rwis e p res en t i n t he fed eral bu il di ng . Id. at 5 23 . Of th os e 1 6 p eo pl e, on e ev en tu al ly w as sea te d o n t he jury fo r tr ia l. Id . Aftera rev ie w of t he fact s, we fo un d tha t b ecau se th ere was no sh owi ng th atan y no nc om pl ia nc e d ep riv ed Mal do na do of afai r po ss ib il it y of o bt ai ni ng a trul y

rep res en ta ti ve cro ss sec ti on , th ere was no pre

jud ic e. Id. Here, a p ers on with ana m e si m il ar t o t he pe rs onsu m m on edsh owe d up a nd was sea te d o n t he jury. The re co rdsh ows th atall th e p ro vi si on s o f jury sel ect io n were s ub st an ti al ly com

pl ie d wi th . A qu al ifi edjuro r was sel ect ed , subjec te d t o vo ir di re , acce pt edby both p art ie s, an d s eat edon th e jury. The re i s n o i nd ic at io n t ha t th e juro r se le ct edde pr iv edBru ns on of afai r tr ia l o r a tru ly repre se nt at iv e cro ss se ct io n o f th e co m

m un it y . Con se qu en tl y , th e co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n refu si ng to setasi de th e jury’ s v erd ic t an d g ran t Br un so n ane w tri al . III. Whe n app ro pr ia te , we rev ie w sen te nc in g i ss ue s n otrai se d b efo re the di st ric t co urt o nl y

forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba rr in gt on , 64 8 F .3d11 78 , 11 95 (11 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Thatis , we m ay co rrec t an erro r, atou r di sc ret io n, wh ere ( 1) anerro r oc cu rred ; (2 ) th e err orwas p la in ; an d (3 ) th e err oraffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. 4Uni te d Sta tes v. Ol an o , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 2- 36 , 11 3 S .Ct. 1 77 0, 1 77 7- 79 , 12 3

L.E.2d50 8 (1 99 3) . Whe n t he se th ree fa ct or s ar e m et , we m ay ex erci se di sc ret io n an d c orrectth e err orif i t “ se rio us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id. at 7 36 , 11 3 S .Ct. at17 79 . The ACCA requi res th e co urt t o i m po se a se nt en ce o f atlea st15 y ears if a de fen da ntha s t hr ee p rev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol en t fe lo ni es or s eri ou s dru g of fen se s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ). Bru ns on arg ue s t ha t o ne of h is pre vi ou s co nv ic ti on s d idno t qua li fy as a n ACC A pre di cat e o ffen se ; t he refo re, h is 18 0 m on th s’ sen te nc e is in va li d a ndsh ou ldbe va cat ed . Becau se Bru ns on di d n ot pr es en t t hi s ar gu m en t t o t he di stric t co urt, we as se ss hi s o bjec ti on to th e ch al le ng edco nv ic ti on un de r th e p la in erro r st an da rd . The co nv ic ti on at i ss ue is a Fl or id a st at e co urt co nv ic ti on fora dr ug off en se . The pre se nt en ce re po rt ( “ PSR” ) id en ti fie d t he co nv ic ti onas “ Co cai ne Sel l Del iv er Po ss es s wi th Int en t.” Brun so n c on te nd s t ha t t he re was no su ch co nv ic ti on be cau se th e st at e co urt ju dg m en t re ve al s t he co nv ic ti on as avi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . § 89 3.1 3( 1) (A)(1 ), a n on -ex is te ntth e st atut e, rat he r th anFla . Sta t. § 89 3.1 3( 1) (a)( 1) . Inot he r wor ds , th e jud gm en t s ho ul d h av e ci te d § 89 3.1 3( 1) (a)( 1) as t he ba si s fo r th e co nv ic ti on . As n ot edab ov e, th e PSR st at edth atBruns on was c on vi ct edof “ Co cai ne

5Sel l Del iv er Po ss es s wi th Int en t.” Brun so n d idno t o bjec t t o t hi s s ta te m en t, wh ic h

co in ci de s wi th Fla . Sta t. § 89 3.1 3( 1) (a)( 1) ; h en ce, b y no t o bjec ti ng , he wai ve d t he PSR’s cl as si fic at io n o f th e co nv ic ti on as aser io us dru g o ffen se . Bru ns onals o arg ue s t ha t t he co urt co m m it te d p la in erro r in us in g the co nv ic ti on be cau se th e st at e co urt ju dg m en t’s u se of “ (A)” i ns te adof “ (a)” in cit in g t he st atut e ren de red th e jud ge m en t u nc on st itut io na l. HadBru ns on pre se nt edth e arg um en t t o the di st ric t co urt an d the co urt re jecte d i t, the co urt wo ul d n otha ve erre d b ecau se a de fen da ntm ay

no t co ll at eral ly atta ckin a fed eral sen te nc in g p ro ceed in g u nd er the ACCA a s ta te co urt co nv ic ti on on a co ns ti tu ti on al gro un d u nl es s t he co nv ic ti on was ob ta in edin vi ol at io n o f hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el , Cu st is v. Uni te d Sta tes , 51 1 U.S. 48 5, 4 87 , 11 4 S .Ct. 1 73 2, 1 73 4, 1 28 L.Ed.2d51 7 (1 99 4) , andBru ns on do es no t arg ue th athe was c on vi ct edin de ro ga ti on of t ha t ri gh t. AFFIR MED.

6