FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 1, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 11 40 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 19 6- CR-1 -KD-B-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us STUART CRAIG DUBOSE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 1, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Stua rt C rai g Du Bo se ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r m ak in g afal se st at em en t i nco nn ect io n wi th th e acqui si ti on of afir earm , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (a)( 6) ,

an d fo r po ss es si ng a fi rearm whi le subjec t t o apro te ct iv e o rd er, i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(8 ). Spe ci fic al ly, DuB os e arg ue s tha t (1 ) th e p ro te ct iv e o rd er un de rlyin g h is co nv ic ti on do es no t s at is fy th e requi rem en ts of S ect io n 9 22 (g )(8 ); (2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y refu si ng to adm itin to ev id en ce the en ti re tran sc rip t o f th e d iv or ce h eari ng at wh ic h the pro te ct iv e o rd er was en te red ; an d (3 ) hi s co nv ic ti on is in va li d b ecau se th e o rd er was vo idwhen he pu rch as edth e fir earm . On M arch 25 , 20 08 , inth e m id stof d iv or ce p ro ceed in gs , Alab am a Ci rcu it Ju dg e Tho m as Bax te r is su eda do m es ti c v io le nc e p ro te ct iv e o rd er ag ai ns t Defen da ntDub os e fo ll owi ng anex pa rte he ari ng on a m ot io n b y DuBo se ’s wife, All is onT. DuBo se . The Ord er s ta te d: Stua rt Du Bo se is he reb y

sp eci fic al ly restrai ne d a nden joi ne d fr om in ti m id at in g, thr eat en in g, h urti ng , har as si ng , or i n a ny way pu tt in g t he pl ai nt iff , All is on T. DuBo se , herdaug ht ers an d/ orhe r at to rn ey infear of th ei r li ve s, h eal th , or s afet y pe nd in g fi na l h eari ng of t hi s s ui t. Oth erwi se , he s ho ul d b e h el d i n d ire ctco nt em ptof t he ord ers of t hi s Co urt. W it hi n s ev eral da y s o f th e h eari ng , She rif f of Cla rk e Co un try, Alab am a, pe rs on al ly serv edth e p ro te ct iv e o rd er o n Du Bo se . On Apr il 7, 2 00 8, an ot he r he ari ng was h el d b efo re Maren go Co un ty D is tri ctCo urt J ud ge W ad e Dri nk ard ,
2who ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e h adbe enap po in te d b y th e Alaba m a Ch ie f Ju st ic e to pre si de ov er the DuBo se di vo rce c as e fo ll owi ng Ju dg e Bax te r’s recu sa l. Defe nd an t DuB os e, a lawy er an d Al ab am a jud ge , rep res en te d h im se lf a t the he ari ng an d m ov edto setasi de th e p rev io us ly iss ue d p ro te ct iv e o rd er. Ju dg e Dri nk ardde ni ed th e m ot io n a ndora ll y

reaf firm edth e Ma rch 25 ord er. On Ap ril 18 , 20 08 , DuBo se pu rch as eda Ru ge r co m pa ctrif le , a sc op e, an d a bo x o f amm

un it io n a t Qu in t’s Hardware i n S aral an d, Al ab am a. At the ti m e o f pu rch as e, DuB os e co m

pl et edATF Form

44 73 , whi chin fo rm edhi m th athe wou ld no t re cei ve a fi rearm

if h e was pro hi bi te d fr om do in g s o b y

Fed eral or S ta te Law. The form ask edDuBo se , am on g o th er thi ng s, “ Are y ousubjec t t o aco urt o rd er res tra in in g youfro m

ha ras si ng , st al ki ng , or t hr eat en in g your ch il d o r anin ti m at e pa rtn er o r ch il d o f su chpa rtn er? ” DuB os e an swe red“ no ” to th is qu es ti on . DuB os e was ch arg edina two -co un t i nd ic tm en t al le gi ng th athe m ad e a fal se st at em en t o n a n ATF Fi rearm s Tra ns act io n R eco rdFo rm inco nn ect io n wi th hi s pu rch as e o f a fi rearm , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (a)( 6) (Co un t 1 ); a ndth athe un la wfu ll y

po ss es se d afir earm

whi le he was s ub

ject t o apro te ct iv e o rd er, i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(8 ) (Co un t 2 ). At tr ia l, the go ve rn m en t p res en te d te st im on y fro m th e fo ll owi ng pe op le : the sh eri ff wh o s erv edth e wri tt enpro te ct iv e or de r on th e Defen da ntaft er the Marc h 2 5t h h eari ng ; J ud ge Drin ka rd ; Al ab am a 3Ju dg e J. Do na ldBan ks , who tes ti fie d t ha t J ud ge Drin ka rd ’s Apri l 7 th ord er wen t

in to effe ctimm ed ia te ly upo n o ral reaf firm at io n o f th e March 25 ord er; th e st or e own er wh o s ol d t he fir earm to Dub os e; an d t he ATF age ntwho arre st edDuBo se an d e st ab li sh edth atth e Ru ge r ha d p rev io us ly trav el edinin te rs ta te co m m erce . The go ve rn m en t al so in tro du cedin to ev id en ce a re da ct edtra ns cri ptof t he Apri l 7t h h eari ng . The d is tri ctco urt, upo n d et erm in in g t ha t m an y of t he is su es di sc us se d i n t he trans cri ptwere i rrel ev an t, d en ie d Du Bo se ’s reque stto adm itth e en ti re 1 03 -p ag e tr an sc rip t. The co urt i ns te adoff eredDuBo se th e o pp ortu ni ty to in tro du ce re le va ntex cerp ts . DuB os e arg ue d t ha t, atth e ti m e h e p ur ch as edth e Ru ge r ri fle , th e o rd ers ag ai ns t h im

were i nv al idonva rio us pro cedur al gro un ds un de r Alaba m a la w. The di st ric t co urt, ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Hick s, 3 89 F.3d51 4 5 34 -3 6 (5 th Cir . 20 04 ), ru le d t ha t Du Bo se co ul d n otco ll at eral ly atta ckth e Apr il 7 o rd er “ if t he ord er was is su edaft er a h eari ng inwhi chhe ha d a n o pp ortu ni ty to p art ic ip at e.” DuB os e was co nv ic te d o n b ot h c ou nt s. Th is ap pe al fol lo wed .
I. Requi rem en ts of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (8 ) (Co un t 2 ) DuB os e arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . He arg ue s t ha t the pro te ct iv e o rd er ag ai ns t h im fai le d t o 4sa ti sf

y th e cri te riasetforth in18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(8 ), be cau se itdi d n otco nt ai n a n ex pl ic itpro hi bi ti ononth e u se of “ph y si cal for ce” n eces sa ry to sat is fy th e requi rem en t o f Sec ti on92 2( g) (8 )(C) (ii ). DuBo se cla im s t ha t, b ecau se of t hi s om is si on , th e o rd er d idno t m ak e itil le ga l fo r hi m to pu rch as e a fi rearm

un de r Sect io n 9 22 (g )(8 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun t, 5 26 F.3d73 9, 7 44 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). In r ev ie win g t he su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce u nd erl y in g aco nv ic ti on , we con si de r th e ev id en ce “ in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, wi thall in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces dra wn i n t he go ve rn m en t’s fa vo r.” Uni te d S ta te s v . LeCro y , 44 1 F .3d 91 4, 9 24 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Dub os e was co nv ic te d u nd er Co un t 2 of h is in di ctm en t fo r vi ol at in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(8 ), whi chba rs fir earm s p os se ss io n b y an y pe rs on “ who is subjec t to a co urt o rd er tha t” :

(A) was is su edaft er a h eari ng of wh ic h s uc h p ers on rece iv edactua l n ot ic e, an d a t wh ic h s uc h p ers onha d a n op po rtu ni ty to p art ic ip at e; (B) re st rai ns su ch pe rs on fro m haras si ng , st al ki ng , or th reat en in g a n i nt im at e p artne r of su chpe rs on or c hi ldof s uc h in ti m at e p artne r orpe rs on , or e ng ag in g i n o th er co nduc t tha t wou ldpl ace an i nt im at e p artne r in reas on ab le fear of b od il y in jury to th e p artne r orch il d; an d (C) (i ) in cl ud es a fi nd in g t ha t s uc h p ers on rep res en ts a 5cred ib le th reatto th e p hysic al saf ety of s uc h i nt im at e p artne r orch il d; or (ii) by its term s ex pl ic it ly pro hi bi ts th e u se , att em pt ed us e, orth reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t s uc h in ti m at e p artne r orch il d tha t wo ul d re as on ab ly be ex pe ct ed to cau se bo di ly inju ry . 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(8 ). DuB os e arg ue s t ha t h e can no t b e co nv ic te d u nd er tha t s ta tu te be cau se , at the ti m e h e p ur ch as edth e Ru ge r ri fle , he was no t u nd er a p ro te ct iv e o rd er tha t sa ti sf ie d t he requi rem en ts of S ect io n 9 22 (g )(8 ). Here, the re i s n o d oubtth atth e pr ot ect iv e o rd er i n que st io n m eet s t he requi rem en ts of S ect io n 9 22 (g )(8 )(A), be cau se th e Apr il 7 o rd er was en te redaft er a h eari ng at wh ic h Du Bo se bo th was pr es en t an d h adanop po rtu ni ty to re sp on d. Th ere i s al so no do ub t tha t the ord er m eet s t he requi rem en ts of s ub se ct io n (B ) of th atst atut e, be cau se itres tra in ed DuB os e fro m

“ in ti m id at in g, thr eat en in g, hurti ng , [or ] ha ras si ng ” h is wife an d h er daug ht ers . Fin al ly, th e o rd er d oe s n otm ak e an y fin di ng th atDuBo se rep res en ts a cred ib le th reatto th e p hysic al saf ety of h is wife or h er d au gh te rs , as re qu ire d b y Sect io n 9 22 (g )(8 )(C) (i) . There fo re, i n o rd er fo r DuB os e’s co nv ic ti onun de r 92 2( g) (8 ) to be va li d, the Apri l 7 ord er m us t co m pl y with 9 22 (g )(8 )(C) (ii ) by ex pl ic it ly pro hi bi ti ng “ th e u se , att em pt edus e, orth reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t [h is wife an d h er d au gh te rs ] th atwou ldreas on ab ly be ex pe ct edto cau se bo di ly inju ry .” DuBo se arg ue s t ha t the ord er d oe s n otm eetth is requi rem en t 6be cau se th e p ro te ct iv e o rd er d oe s n otus e th e te rm s “ us e” o r “ at te m pt edus e” o r

“ th reat en edus e” o f “ph y si cal for ce.” We hav e n ev er ad dr es se d wh ethe r a pr ot ect iv e o rd er tha t d oe s n otco nt ai n t he pre ci se st atut ory lan gu ag e o f Sec ti on 92 2( g) (8 )(C) (ii ) can subjec t a d efen da ntto cri min al pu ni sh m en t u nd er Se ct io n 92 2( g) (8 ). W e th eref

or e rel y on th e g ui da nc e o f ot he r ci rcu it s an d o f co m m on se ns e in m ak in g o urde te rm in at io n. InUni te d S ta te s v . Bos ti c, th e Fo urth Cir cu itsu m m ari ly hel d tha t an ord er th atdi d n otco nt ai n t he pre ci se st atut ory lan gu ag e, bu t o rd eredanin di vi du al to

“ refr ai n fr om

ab us in g” hi s wi fe, “ un am bi gu ou sl y sat is fie s” th e requi rem en ts of subs ect io n (C )(i i) t ha t the co urt o rd er p ro hi bi t the us e, at te m pt edus e, orth reat en ed us e o f “ph y si cal for ce.” 1 68 F.3d71 8, 7 21 -2 2 (4 th Cir . 19 99 ). In Un it edSta te s v . Co cci a, th e Fi rs t Ci rcu itbe cam e th e o nl y ot he r ci rcu itto ad dr es s wh ethe r a pr ot ect iv e o rd er m

us t co nt ai n t he id en ti cal lan gu ag e o f subs ect io n (C )(i i) t o m eet th e st atut e’s requi rem en ts . 44 6 F .3d23 3, 2 41 -4 2 (1 stCir . 20 06 ). The co urt, ci ti ng Bo st ic , hel d tha t a p ro te ct iv e o rd er tha t d ire ct ed“ th e d efen dantto ‘ refr ai n fr om ab us in g’ hi s wi fe” was su ffi ci en t t o s at is fy th e st atut e’s pr ov is io ns . Coc ci a, 44 6 F.3 d a t 2 42 . The co urt n ot edth atth e “ de fin it io n o f ‘abu se ’ as a ve rb in cl ud es ‘ to in jure (a p ers on ) ph y si cal ly or m en ta ll y ’” andth at“ ‘[a] bu se ’ as a no un in cl ud es ‘physic al or m en ta l m al tre atm en t, o fte n re su lt in g i n m en ta l, em ot io na l, s ex ua l, o r 7ph y si cal in

jury.’ ” Id . Thu s, the co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the “ co m m on ly und ers to od de fin it io n o f ‘abu se ’ in cl ud es vi ol en t ac ts in vo lv in g p hysic al for ce wi th in th e de fin it io n,” an d t ha t a c omm on se ns e rea di ng of t he st atut e b el ie d C oc ci a’s na rro wer i nt erp ret at io n. Se e id . Fo ll owi ng th e an al y si s o f ou r si st er ci rcu it s, we co nc lu de th ata co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(8 ) do es no t re qu ire th atth e p reci se lan gu ag e fo un d i n subs ect io n (C )(i i) m

us t b e u se d i n apro te ct iv e o rd er fo r itto qu al ify un de r th e st atut e. See B os ti c, 16 8 F .3dat 7 21 -2 2; Co cci a, 44 6 F .3dat 2 41 -4 2. When in te rp ret in g ast atut e, we rel y on th e “ or di na ry , con te m po rary, com

m on m ean in g” of it s wo rd s. Perrin v. Un it edSta te s, 4 44 U.S. 37 , 42 , 10 0 S . Ct. 3 11 , 31 4 (1 97 9) ; Uni te d S ta te s v . Haun , 49 4 F .3d10 06 , 10 09 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Mo reo ve r, we are no t re qu ire d t o i nt erp reta st atut e “ insu cha narro w fas hi onas t o d efea t wh atwe co nc ei ve to be it s o bv io us an d d om in at in g g en eral pu rp os e.” See Mi ll er v . Am us em en t En te rp ris es , Inc ., 39 4 F .2d34 2, 3 50 (5t h C ir. 1 96 8) . 1 The Apri l 7 ord er “ res tra in edan d e njo in ed ” DuB os e “ fro m in ti m id at in g, th reat en in g, h urti ng , har as si ng , or i n a ny way pu tt in g t he pl ai nt iff

, All is on T. DuB os e, he r daug ht ers an d/ orhe r atto rn ey infear of the ir l iv es , hea lt h, o r
Fifth Circuit dec isions rendere d prior to September 30, 1981 arebinding 1 prec edent on the E leventh Circuit. See B onner v. City of Pritchar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba

nc). 8sa fety [.]” T he de fin it io n o f “ hu rt” as ave rb in cl ud es “ [t]o i nf li ctwith p hysic al pa in .” W eb st er’s New Co ll eg ia te Dict . (19 79 ). Thu s, the ord er’s l an gu ag e res tra in in g Du Bo se fro m

“ hu rti ng ” h is wife or h er d au gh te rs , at the ve ry lea st , sa ti sf ie s s ub se ct io n (C )(i i)’s re qu ire m en t tha t the ord er ex pl ic it ly pro hi bi t the us e, at te m pt edus e, orth reat en edus e o f “ph y si cal for ce” t ha t wo ul d re as on ab ly be ex pe ct edto cau se bo di ly inju ry . A narro wer i nt erp ret at io n wo ul d d efea t wh atwe co nc ei ve to be th e o bv io us an d g en eral purp os e o f th e st atut e. The refo re, we h ol d t ha t the ord er t o wh ic h Du Bo se was s ub jecte d, wi th it s pr oh ib it io n o n “ hu rti ng ” h is wife or h er ch il dr en , fel l wi th in th e p aram et ers of 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(8 ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on onCo un t 2 (a ll eg in g t ha t Du Bo se un la wfu ll y po ss es se d afir earm

whi le he was s ub

ject t o a pr ot ect iv e o rd er i n v io la ti on of S ect io n 9 22 (g )(8 )). 2

II. Adm is si onof R ed act edTran sc rip t DuB os e n ex t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n t o
DuB ose also argues that, bec ause hewas not subject to a c ourt order prohibiting 2 him from purcha sing a

firea rm at the time of his purc hase, he is not guilty of Count 1 (knowing ly makinga fa lse statement with the intent to dece ive a f irea rms deale r with respe ct to a fa ct materia l to the lawfulness of the sale, in violation of Section 922(a )(6) ). B eca use we have he ld that DuB ose wa s in fact subjec t to a court orde r prohibiting him fr om purcha sing a firea rm at the time of his purcha se, we also reje ct his challeng e to Count 1, and aff irm his conviction on Count 1. 9adm itin to ev id en ce the en ti re tran sc rip t o f th e Apr il 7, 2 00 8 d iv or ce h eari ng ,

whi le admit ti ng th e g ov ern m en t’s ei gh t-p ag e red act edve rs io n i ns te ad . He arg ue s th atth e en ti re co nt ex t i n wh ic h h e was ap pr is edof t he ord er was rel ev an t t o whe th er h e was un de r a p ro te ct iv e o rd er co ve redby § 92 2( g) (8 ). He als o arg ue s th atth e en ti re tran sc rip t co ns ti tu te d re le va ntev id en ce tha t co ul d h av e as si st edth e jury whe n m ak in g t he de te rm in at io n o f whe th er h e kno win gl y vi ol at ed§ 9 22 (a)( 6) whe n h e fi ll edou t a f

orm to pu rch as e a fi rearm . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng s o n a dm is si on of e vi de nc e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Ji m en ez, 2 24 F.3d12 43 , 12 49 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ).

“ [W] he n e m

pl oyin g a n abu se -o f-d is cret io n s tand ard , we m us t af firm un le ss we fin d t ha t the di stric t co urt h as m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t, o r ha s ap pl ie d t he wro ng leg al st an da rd .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Frazi er, 3 87 F.3d12 44 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Pur su an t t o R

ul e 4 02 of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e, ev id en ce tha t i s n ot rel ev an t i s n otadmis si bl e. Fed . R. Evi d. 4 02 . Inth e p res en t ca se , th e h eari ng at i ss ue be fo re J ud ge Drin ka rdco nc ern ed th e d iv or ce b etweenDuBo se an d h is wife . The tran sc rip t the refo re co ve reda va rie ty of is su es , su ch as p ro pe rty div is io n a ndcu st od y . The d is tri ctco urt al lo wed a red act edpo rti on of t he he ari ng ’s 11 0- pa ge tra ns cri ptin to ev id en ce, ex pl ai ni ng th atitdi d n otwantth e jury to c on si de r “ irr el ev an t” is su es . The co urt al so all owe d 10DuB os e to ex tra ctan y po rti on s o f th e h eari ng th atwere re le va ntto th e p ro te ct iv e or de r so th athe co ul d e nt er tho se po rti on s i nt o e vi de nc e to est ab li sh co nt ex t. DuB os e d idno t t ak e th is op po rtu ni ty. The c ou rt’s p ro hi bi ti on of i rrel ev an t ev id en ce co m

pl ie d wi th Ru le 40 2 a ndwas n otcle ar erro r. See Fe d. R. Ev id . 40 2. The refo re, the co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y refu si ng to adm itth e en ti re tra ns cri ptin to ev id en ce.

III. Vali di ty of Und erl y in g P ro te ct iv e Ord er Inhi s l as t p oi ntof e rro r, DuB os e at ta ck s t he va li di ty of hi s u nd erl y in g pr ot ect iv e o rd er, en te redon Apri l 7 , 20 08 , arg ui ng th atth e o rd er was vo idwhen he pu rch as edth e fi rearm

be cau se : (1 ) th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pro ve th at Drin ka rd , a di st ric t co urt ju dg e in Mare ng o C ou nt y , hadth e au th or it y to en te r an y or de rs ina do m es ti c rel at io ns cas e in th e Ci rcu itCo urt o f Cl ark e Co un ty; an d (2 ) an y ord ers is su edinth e Ma rch 25 , 20 08 he ari ng be fo re Jud ge Bax te r were v oi d be cau se th ey

were en te redpri orto th e p aym en t o f a fi li ng fee o r th e cas e b ei ng fil ed . W e n eedno t ad dr es s t he m eri ts of Du Bo se ’s arg um en ts be cau se we ho ld th athe can no t ch al le ng e th e v al id it y of t he un de rlyin g p ro te ct iv e o rd er as a m ean s of co ll at eral ly atta ck in g h is 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(8 ) pr os ecu ti on . Whe th er a d efen da ntcanco ll at eral ly atta cka pr ot ect iv e o rd er i s a que st io n 11of

law we re vi ew de no vo . Cf. Uni te d S ta te s v . Mik el l, 1 02 F.3d47 0, 4 74 (11 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (s ta ti ng th atwhet he r a d efen da ntcanco ll at eral ly atta cka pr io r co nv ic ti on is a qu es ti on of s ta tu to ry in te rp ret at io n re vi ewedde no vo ). Whe th er a d efen da ntm ay ch al le ng e th e v al id it y

of t he un de rlyin g s ta te co urt pr ot ect iv e o rd er i n a18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(8 ) pr os ecu ti on is anis su e o f fi rs t im pr es si on inth is co urt. Eve ry ot he r ci rcu itto ad dr es s t hi s i ss ue , ho wev er, h as he ldth ata de fen da ntm ay no t co ll at eral ly atta ckth e und erl y in g p ro te ct iv e o rd er i n a Sec ti on 92 2( g) (8 ) pr os ecu ti on . See Un it edSta te s v . W es co tt , 57 6 F .3d34 7, 3 54 (7 th Cir . 20 09 ); Un it edSta te s v . You ng , 45 8 F .3d99 8, 1 00 5 (9 th Cir . 20 06 ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Hick s, 3 89 F.3d51 4, 5 34 (5t h C ir. 2 00 4) ; Un it edSta te s v . Bak er, 19 7 F .3d21 1, 2 16 -1 7 (6 th Cir . 19 99 ). In e achof t ho se cas es , th e co urt re li edon th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inLewis v. Un it edSta te s, 4 45 U.S. 55 , 10 0 S . Ct. 91 5 (1 98 0) . In Lewi s, the de fen da ntwas c on vi ct edof b ei ng a fel on inpo ss es si on of a fi rearm , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 20 2( a)(1 ). 44 5 U.S. at56 , 10 0 S . Ct. at91 6. Th e d efen da ntarg ue d t ha t h is pre di cat e fel on y co nv ic ti on was i nv al id be cau se he was n otrep res en te d b y co un se l atth e ti m e o f hi s co nv ic ti on . Id. at56
- 58 , 10 0 S . Ct. at91 6- 18 . The Supr em e Co urt d is ag reed , det erm in in g t ha t u nd er th e p la in m ean in g o f th e st atut e “ th e fac t o f a fel on y co nv ic ti on im

po se s a f ire arm di sabi li ty unt il th e co nv ic ti on is va cat edor the fel on is rel ie ve d o f hi s d is ab il it y by
12so m e aff

irmativ e act io n.” Id. at60 -6 1, 1 00 S. Ct. at91 8. Th e Co urt thu s h el d t ha t th e fed eral fir earm s s ta tu te in te nd edto pre ve ntall co nv ic te d fe lo ns fro m po ss es si ng fir earm s, ev enif the un de rlyin g “ fel on y co nv ic ti on ul ti m at el y

m ig ht tu rnou t t o b e in va li d.” Id. at62 , 10 0 S . Ct. at91 9. InBak er, the Six th Cir cu itap pl ie d Lewi s’s re as on in g t o a ffi rm th e co nv ic ti on of ade fen da ntwho po ss es se d afir earm whi le subjec t t o ado m es ti c vi ol en ce p ro te ct io n o rd er. 1 97 F.3dat 2 17 . Bak er at ta ck edhi s Se ct io n 9 22 (g )(8 ) co nv ic ti on on th e g ro un ds th atth e ci vi l p ro ceed in g b y whi chhe was m ad e subjec t to th e o rd er d idno t af

fo rdhi m th e co ns ti tu ti on al saf

eg ua rd s as so ci at edwith a cri m in al pro ceed in g. Id . at 2 16 . Call in g t he Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inLewis

“ in stru ct iv e,” the co urt h el d t ha t “ [r]ega rd le ss as t o h ow Ba ke r be cam e subjec t t o a do m es ti c v io le nc e p ro te ct io n o rd er, h e at ta in edth atst atus an d t hu s m us t co m pl y with § 92 2( g) (8 ).” Id . at 2 17 . Becau se “ [a] jury , aft er a cr im in al tri al featur in g a ll requi redco ns ti tu ti on al saf eg ua rd s, fo un d B ak er h adfai le d t o d o s o,” th e co urt up he ldBak er’s co nv ic ti on . Id. Thre e o th er ci rcu it s h av e si nc e ag reed . In Hi ck s, the de fen da ntarg ue d t ha t hi s co nv ic ti on un de r Sec ti on 92 2 (g )(8 ) was in va li d b ecau se th e st at e co urt tha t is su edth e und erl y in g p ro te ct iv e o rd er l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . 38 9 F .3d at53 4. Th e Fi fth Cir cu it , rel y in g o n Lewi s, af firm edHick ’s con vi ct io n upo n 13de te rm in in g t ha t “ no th in g i n t he lan gu ag e o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(8 ) in di cat es th atit

ap pl ie s o nl y

to pe rs on s s ub

ject t o a va li d , as o pp os edto an in va li d , pro te ct iv e or de r.” Id . at 5 35 (em

ph as is inori gi na l). Th e co urt the n p oi nt edou t tha t “ [i]f Hick s t ru ly bel ie ve d t ha t [t he ord er] was i nv al id , he s ho ul d h av e o bjec te d t o t he [co un ty cou rt]’s subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on at t he ori gi na l co urt h eari ng , app eal ed th e o rd er fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n, o r so ug hta writof m an da m us fro m th e lo cal ap pe ll at e co urt be

fo re po ss es si ng eit he r fi rearm s o r amm un it io n.” Id. at53 6 (em ph as is inori gi na l); acco rdYou ng , 45 8 F .3dat 1 00 5 (h ol di ng th atde fen da nt s pr os ecu te d u nd er Se ct io n 9 22 (g )(8 ) m ay on ly atta ckth e v al id it y

of t he un de rlyin g pr ot ect iv e o rd er o n t he gro un ds th atth ey were n otpro vi de d ahe ari ng of wh ic h th ey were g iv en“ actua l n ot ic e an d a n o pp ortuni ty to p art ic ip at e”); W es co tt , 57 6 F.3 d a t 3 53 (de te rm in in g t ha t, b ecau se th e p ro te ct iv e o rd er ag ai ns t the de fen da nt was is su edaft er a h eari ng inco m pl ianc e wit h S ect io n 9 22 (g )(8 )(A), “ [s ]o lo ng as th e Ord er was ineffe ct , [th e d efen da nt ] co ul d n otlawf ul ly pos se ss fir earm s o r amm un it io n” ). W e fo ll ow o ursi st er ci rcu it s an d h ol d t ha t p ro te ct iv e o rd ers sat is fy in g t he Sect io n 9 22 (g )(8 ) requi rem en ts are an al og ou s t o fe lo ny con vi ct io ns forth e pu rp os es of t he st atut e’s res tra in t o n the po ss es si on of f ire arm s. Re as on in g fr om Lewis , th e v al id ity

of a n u nd erl y in g p ro te ct iv e o rd er i s t he refo re i rrel ev an t t o a 14de fen da nt ’s con vi ct io n u nd er Se ct io n 9 22 (g )(8 ). Here, i t i s u nc on te st edth ata

pr ot ect iv e o rd er was en te redag ai ns t Def en da ntDuBo se on Apri l 7 , 20 08 . It i s al so un co nt es te d t ha t Du Bo se was p res en t an d re pr es en te d h im se lf a t the he ari ng . Thu s, the requi rem en ts th atDuBo se rece iv e a h eari ng with a ctua l n ot ic e an d a n op po rtu ni ty to re sp on d h av e b een m et . DuB os e ci te s n o aut ho rit y su gg es ti ng th atanin va li d u nd erl y in g p ro te ct iv e or de r wou ldnu ll ify his co nv ic ti on . Mor eo ve r, hi s at te m pt s t o d is ti ng ui shth e rel ev an t p rece de ntfai l. At t he ti m e itwas e nt ered , th e p ro te ct iv e o rd er ag ai ns t DuB os e h adas m

uc h fo rce a s t he de fen da nt ’s pro te ct iv e o rd er i n Hi ck s. As with th e Hic ks de fen da nt , if Du Bo se tru ly bel ie ve d t ha t the ord er was in va li d, h e sh ou ld ha ve ob jecte d t o t he co urt’s s ub

ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on be fo re p os se ss in g e it he r fir earm s o r amm

un it io n. Bec au se DuBo se pu rch as eda fi rearm whi le subjec t t o ado m es ti c v io le nc e pr ot ect iv e o rd er i ss ue d a fte r a h eari ng of wh ic h Du Bo se ha d a ctua l n ot ic e an d a t whi chhe ha d a n o pp ortu ni ty to re sp on d, the jury pr op erl y co nv ic te d h im

un de r Sect io n 9 22 (g )(8 ). Thu s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f DuB os e’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . AFFIRMED. 3 Appellant’s r equest for

oral a rgument is DENI ED. 3 15