FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 28, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16816 A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 2 0 3 0 1 - C R - C MA U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s K E V I N R I V E R O , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 28, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K e vi n R i ve r o appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e of 27 m onths f

or2

k n o w i n g l y a n d w i l l f

u l l y r e c e i v i n g a f

i r e a r m w h i l e u n d e ri n f

o r ma t i o n f

o ra c r i me puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm e ntf ora t e r m e xc e e di ng one y e a r , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (n). H avi ng re vi ew ed the re cord and con si dere d the bri ef s a nd oral ar gu m entof coun se l , w e f i nd no re vers i bl e e rr or. Fi r s t , Ri v e r o ’ s a r g u me n tth a tth e g o v e rn me n t ’ s p r o s e c u t i o n u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 9 22 (n) vi ol at ed hi s S ec on d A m endm entri gh tt o k ee p and beararm s i s f orec l osed by ou r r ea di ng of U ni t ed S t at es v. W ri gh t , 11 7 F . 3d 12 65 , 12 72 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). S e c ond, w e r e

j e c tR i ve r o’ s a r gum e nttha tthe w or d “ r e c e i ve ” i n 18 U . S . C . § 922( n) i s unc ons t i tut i ona l l y va gue , f i ndi ng tha ti tgi ve s or di na ry pe r s ons c l e a rnot i c e of w ha ti s pr ohi bi t e d the r e i n. T hi r d, w e f i nd no m e r i tt o R i ve r o’ s a r gum e nttha tthe i nd i ctm entfa i l ed t o adequ at el y s t at e the offe nse w hen i tal l eged on l y thatR i vero ha d be e n “ pr e vi ous l y c ha r ge d by i ndi c tm e nt ” i ns t e a d of a l l e gi ng tha tR i ve r o w a s “ unde r ” i ndi c tm e ntw he n he r e c e i ve d the f i r e a r m a ti s s ue . T he i ndi c tm e nt e xpr e s s l y r e f

e r s t o the s t a tut ory pr ovi s i ons on w hi c h the c ha r ge s w e r e ba s e d a nd the da t e of

the i nc i de nti n que s t i on, a nd, a c c or di ngl y , pr ovi de s not i c e t o R i ve r o of th e c h a r g e s h e f

a c e d a n d w o u l d p r e c l u d e a n y s u b s e q u e n tp r o s e c u t i o n f o rth e s a me o f f e n s e . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . F e rn , 1 5 5 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . Wi th r e f e r e n c e t o a s s e r t e d e rr o r s a ttr i a l , a f t e ra r e v i e w o f

th e tr i a l r e c o r d , we ca nn otsa y thatthe tri al j ud ge abused i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tadm i tt ed t es t i m on y that3

R i vero i m pers on at ed a pol i ce offi ce r. N or ca n w e s aythatthere w as an i m perm i ss i bl e var i ance betw ee n the al l egat i on s i n the i nd i ctm entand the proo f a t tr ia l s im p ly b e c a u s e th e ju ry a s k e d a q u e s tio n p e r ta in in g to R iv e r o ’s f ir e a r m r e n ta ls on a di f f e r e ntda y tha n tha tof

the c ha r ge d c onduc t . F i na l l y , w e f i nd the g o v e rn m e n t p r e s e n te d s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e f

o ra ju ry to f

in d th a t R iv e r o w a s g u ilty o f th e c h a r g e d c o n d u c t. AF F I RME D.