FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 21, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 10541 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -001 61 -C R -W T M -4-1 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 D O M I N I C B R O W N , 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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e pt e m be r21, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D om i ni c B r ow n appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons f or : ( 1) c a r

j a c ki ng, i n vi ol a t i on of2

18 U . S . C . § 2119; ( 2) pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m by a c onvi c t e d f

e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1); and (3) po ss es si on and d i sc harge of a f i re arm i n furthera nce o f a c r i m e o f

v i o l e n c e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) . Af t e rr e v i e w, we affi rm B ro w n ’ s co n v i ct i o n s. I . B AC KG RO UN D A . T h e C arj ac k i n g A ttr i a l , the vi c t i m of

the c a r j a c ki ng, H or a c e D unc a n, J r . , t e s t i f i e d tha the w a s w a lk in g to h is c a ra r o u n d m id n ig h t w h e n tw o m e n a s k e d h im f o ra r id e . D unc a n r e c ogni z e d one of the tw o m e n a nd a gr e e d t o gi ve the m a r i de . T he pe r s on w ho D unc a n r e c ogni z e d s a ti n the pa s s e nge r ’ s s e a ta nd the othe rpe r s on, w hom D u n c a n h a d n e v e rm e t, s a t in th e b a c k s e a t. A s D un ca n w as dri vi ng , he fe l ta gun i n the back of hi s hea d. T he fr on tse at p assen g er th en p l aced a g u n atD u n can ’ s t em p l e an d t o l d D u n can th at“ th i s i s a ja c k m o v e .” T h e b a c k s e a t p a s s e n g e rth e n h it D u n c a n o n th e h e a d a n d to ld h im to g e t o f th e c a r . W hen D un ca n g otou tof the ca r, the back sea tpass enger hi thi m tw o t o three m o r e tim e s u n til D u n c a n f e ll to th e g r o u n d . T h e f r o n t s e a t p a s s e n g e rth e n h it D u n ca n a c o u p le o f tim es an d to ld D u n ca n , “ yo u g o n n a d ie h er e to n ig h t. I’m go nn a l ea ve you t o d i e her e t on i gh t . ” T he fr on tse atpass enger, l at eri dent i fi ed as3

B row n, then sho tD un ca n and drov e a w ay w i th D un ca n’ s c arand h i s w al l et , w hi ch c ont a i ne d D unc a n’ s dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e , hi s bi r th c e r t i f i c a t e , hi s s oc i a l s e c ur i ty c a r d, a n d s o m e c a s h . T he po l i ce l at erfoun d D un ca n, w ho t ol d the po l i ce thathe had b ee n rob bed and sho t . D un ca n i dent i fi ed hi s c aras a 199 1 M er curyG ra nd M ar qu i s. D un ca n t es t i fi ed thathe pi cked ou tB row n from a pol i ce ph ot o l i neup as the fr on tse at p a s s e n g e rin h is c a rth a t n ig h t, a n d a s th e o n e w h o to o k h is w a lle t a n d s h o t h im . B . C r os s - e xam i n at i on of D u n c an D ur i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on a ttr i a l , de f e ns e c ouns e l a s ke d D unc a n a bout st at em ent s he m ade t o p ol i ce on F ebruary17 and 2 3 w hen t he po l i ce i nt ervi ew ed h im a b o u t th e F e b ru a ry 8 c a r ja c k in g . I n a n e f

f o r t to im p e a c h D u n c a n ’s c r e d ib ility w i th a pr i ori nc ons i s t e nts t a t e m e nt , de f e ns e c ouns e l a tt e m pt e d t o s how D unc a n a copy of the tra nscr i ptfr om B row n’ s probat i on re vo ca t i on hear i ng . T he di stri ct co u rti m m ed i at el y cal l ed co u n sel t o a si d eb ar co n feren ce an d t o l d co u n sel t o ask th e w itn e s s f

ir s t w h e th e rh e m a d e a p a r tic u la rs ta te m e n t b e f o r e a tte m p tin g to i m p each h i m w i th a p ri o r i n co n si st en tst at em en t , as fo l l o w s: N o w , I’m g o i ng t o s ay thi s on ce du ri ng thi s tri al and onl y on ce : i f w e ar e goi ng t o d o any exam i nat i on abou tpri or st at em ent s, the rul e i s that yo u f ir s t a sk th e w itn es s w h eth erh e m ad e th e s tatem en t. Y o u d o n ’t s a y , d o y o u r e c a ll th i s , d o y o u r e c a ll th a t. Y o u s a y , d id y o u s a y , w h a t. A n d y ou a s k hi m w he the rhe m a de tha ts t a t e m e ntornot , oka y . I f he a dm i t s i t , tha t ’ s the e nd of i t . I f h e d en i e s i t , the n y ou s a y , do y ou4

re ca l l on su ch an d su ch a dat e m aki ng a s t at em entt o an o ff i ce r, m ak i n g a st at em en ti n a tri al tran scri p t, o r w h at ev er w h ere yo u sai d so a n d so . Y o u don’ tappr oa c h hi m . Y ou don’ t– i n f e de r a l c our ts how hi m the s t a t e m e ntunl e s s he a s ks t o s e e the s t a t e m e nt . N ow tha ti s the fe dera l rul e a nd th at’s th e w ay w er e goi ng t o try thi s c as e. Is there a n y m is u n d e r s ta n d in g a b o u t th a t? D ef ense coun se l re spon ded t hathe un ders t oo d the di stri ctcourt . D ef ense coun se l th en st at ed th ath e h ad n o fu rth er q u est i o n s fo r D u n can , an d en d ed th e cro sse x a m in a tio n . C . Po l i c e O f

f i c e r s ’ Te s t i m o ny O f f ic e rA s h le y B r o w n te s tif ie d th a t h e w a s w o r k in g in a n o f f - d u ty c ap a c ity as a s ec u rity o ff

icerfo r a h o tel w h en h e h ea rd a c all o v erh is ra d io ab o u t D u n ca n ’s ca r. O ff i ce r B row n saw the desc ri bed car i n the vi ci ni ty a nd subsequent l y s t op ped i tf or c i bl y . D e f

e nda ntB r ow n, the dr i ve r , j um pe d outof the c a rw i th a gun a nd s t a r t e d runni ng. D e f

e nda ntB r ow n the n dr oppe d the gun, w hi c h ha d thr e e l i ve roun ds i n i t . O ff

i ce r T aharka, w ho w as as si st i ng O ff i ce r B row n, apprehended de f e nda ntB r ow n w hi l e O f f i c e rB r ow n r e tr i e ve d the dr oppe d gun. O f f i c e rT a ha r ka t es t i fi ed thatdefe nd antB row n w as i n p osse ss i on of D un ca n’ s dri ver’ s l i ce nse, s o c ia l s e c u r ity c a r d , a n d c r e d it c a r d . O ff i ce r M ydel l t es t i fi ed thataf t erdefe nd antB row n w as arre st ed, O ff i ce r M y d e ll o b ta in e d f

r o m B r o w n a p a iro f

b lo o d - s ta in e d b lu e je a n s a n d te n n is s h o e s . D N A t es t s l at eri nd i ca t ed thatthe bl oo d m at ched D un ca n’ s w i th a st at i st i ca l5

prob abi l i ty of one i n fou r qui nt i l l i on . O ff i ce r M ydel l m etw i th D un ca n o n M ar ch 9 , s h o w e d D u n c a n a p h o to lin e u p , a n d D u n c a n id e n tif ie d B r o w n a s h is a tta c k e r . O n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a tte m p te d to q u e s tio n O f f ic e rM y d e ll abou tst at em ent s D un ca n m ade t o O ff i ce r M ydel l on F ebruary17 w hen O ff i ce r M yd el l i n t erv i ew ed D u n can atth e h o sp i t al . T h e d i stri ctco u rtw arn ed d efen se coun se l abou tel i ci t i ng i nadm i ss i bl e hea rs ay ; ho w ever , defe nse c ou nsel st at ed that h e w a s m e r e ly q u e s tio n in g O f f ic e rM y d e ll ab o u t th e in c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n ts D un ca n m ade t o i m peac h D un ca n, no tas subst ant i ve evi dence. T he di stri ctcourt d i d n o tal l o w th e cro ss-ex am i n at i o n . T h e i n co n si st en tst at em en t s th atd efen se coun se l w ant ed t o i nq ui re abou tw er e s t at em ent s thatD un ca n m ade t o O ff i ce r M y de l l a tthe hos pi t a l on F e brua ry 17, i nc l udi ng: ( 1) tha tD unc a n w a s dr i vi ng, not w al ki ng , w hen h e s t op ped u po n see i ng tw o b l ac k m al es thathe kn ew ; and (2) that D un ca n tri ed t o app roac h the i nd i vi du al s a nd fi gh tthem for hi s c ar . L at er , O ff

i ce r B i l l C un ni ng ham t es t i fi ed re gardi ng si m i l arst at em ent s that D un ca n m ade a tthe ho spi t al . S peci fi ca l l y, O ff i ce r C un ni ng ham t es t i fi ed that D un ca n t ol d h i m thatD un ca n w as dri vi ng atthe t i m e he s aw B row n and the ot her i nd i vi du al . F urther, D un ca n t ol d O ff i ce r C un ni ng ham thati tw as the other i nd i vi du al he kn ew , and n otB row n. H ow ever , O ff i ce r C un ni ng ham st at ed that D u n c a n w a s h e a v ily s e d a te d d u r in g th e e x c h a n g e .6

D . J ur y D e l i be r a t i o ns D uri ng the j ury del i bera t i on s, the di stri ctcourtre ce i ved a no t e f rom the j ury a s ki ng w he the ri n or de rt o c onvi c tB r ow n f orC ount3, [ the pos s e s s i on a nd di s c ha r ge of

a f i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ] , “ doe s the gun s ubm i tt e d i nt o e vi de nc e ha ve t o be the gun u se d in th e c rim e? ” T h e d istrict co u rt re sp o n d ed sim p ly “N o ” to th e ju ry ’s q u e s tio n . T he go vernm entt oo k the po si t i on thatthe answ erw as no because on a § 924( c ) c ount , the gove rnm e ntc a n a l l e ge a f i r e a r m w a s us e d a nd di s c ha r ge d i n a c r i m e butthe r e i s no pr oof r e qui r e d a s t o the pa r t i c ul a r i ty of the f i r e a r m a nd the g o v e rn m e n t n e e d n o t e v e n h a v e th e g u n to g e t a § 9 2 4 ( c ) c o n v ic tio n . D ef ense coun se l re spon ded: “ Y ou r H on or, I tho ug htthatfor C ou ntT hree [the § 9 24 (c ) c harge] i thad t o b e the gu n thatw as fr om C ou ntT w o [the § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) f

e lo n - in - p o s s e s s io n c h a r g e ], a n d th a t g u n w o u ld h a v e to b e p r o v e n to ha ve be e n i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . ” T he gun s ubm i tt e d i nt o e vi de nc e w a s a . 38 c a lib e rs p e c ia l, s e r ia l n u m b e r0 8 9 3 8 , w h ic h w a s s h o w n to h a v e tr a v e le d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . T he j ury f

ound B r ow n gui l ty a s t o a l l thr e e c ount s i n the i ndi c tm e nt , a nd the d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d B r o w n to 3 0 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t.As stated ea rlier, wereview the district cour t’s restric tions on cross-examination for an 1 abuse of discretion. United States v. Ba ptista-Rodrigue z, 17 F.3d 1354, 1370-71 (11th Cir. 1994). We reviewthe district court' s evidentiar y ruling s for abuse of discretion. United States v. 2 Jimine z, 2 24 F .3 d 1 24 3, 12 49 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 0) . “An

e rron e ou s evide ntiary rulingwi ll re sult in re ve rs a l o n l y i f th e re s u l t i n g e r ro r w a s n o t h ar

m l e s s . An e r

ro r i s h ar m l e s s un l e s s ‘ th e re is a re a so na blelike lih oo d th at [it] a ff e c te d th ede fendant' s su

bs tanti al rights .’ ” Unite d Stat e s v. H and s, 18 4 F .3 d 1 32 2, 13 29 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 9) (intern al c itatio n o mitte d) . In d e c idingif an error su bs tanti ally aff ecte d the outcome, we weigh the rec ord as a whole (i.e ., the facts, context of error , and re sulting prejudice ) ag ainst the evidenc e of thedefendant’s guilt. S ee id. 7 I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . C r os s - e xam i n at i on of D u n c an B r o w n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b y c u ttin g s h o r t h is c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n o f

D u n c a n . W e d is a g r e e .

1 T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b e c au s e B r o w n h im s e lf d is c o n tin u e d th e c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n a f te rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t in s tru c te d h im o n h o w to prop er l y c ross -e xam i ne the vi ct i m usi ng pri or i ncon si st entst at em ent s. A s s t at ed a bove , a f t e rthe di s tr i c tc our ti ns truc t e d B r ow n on the pr ope rc r os s - e xa m i na t i on of D unc a n, de f

e ns e c ouns e l s t a t e d tha the ha d no f ur the rque s t i ons f

orD unc a n a nd e n d e d th e c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n . B . C r o s s - e x a m in a t io n o f O f f ic e r M y d e ll B r ow n a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by not pe r m i tt i ng hi m t o c r os s - e xa m i ne O f f i c e rM y de l l r e ga r di ng a l l e ge dl y i nc ons i s t e nt s t a t e m e n t s th a tth e v i c t i m , Ho r a c e Du n c a n , J r . , m a d e t o Of f i c e rMy d e l l . B r o wn

2“‘H ear say ’ is a st atement, other than one madeby

the dec lara

nt while testifying at the trial 3 or hea ring , offered in evidenceto prove the truth of the matter a sserted.”Fe d. R. Evid. 801(c). Fe deral Rule of Evidence607 provides that “[t] he cre dibility of a w itness may

be attac ked by

any party, including theparty callingthe witness.” F ed. R. Evid. 607.

8 a r g u e s th a t h e w a s n o t a tte m p tin g to in tr o d u c e D u n c a n ’s in c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n ts to O ff icerM yd ell fo r th e tru th o f th e m atter a ss er ted , b u t rath erto attack D u n ca n ’s c r e di bi l i ty . B r ow n c ont e nds f ur the rtha thi s notbe i ng pe r m i tt e d t o c r os s - e xa m i ne O f f ic e rM y d e ll ab o u t D u n c a n ’s s ta te m e n ts v io la te d h is C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e r ig h ts u n d e rth e S ix th A m e n d m e n t.

“ [ U ] nde rF e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 801( d) ( 1) ( A ) pr i ori nc ons i s t e nt st at em ent s a re no thear sa y a nd ar e a dm i ss i bl e a s s ub st ant i ve evi dence i f gi ven un der oath o r s ubj ec tt o the penal ty of per j ury a ta tri al , hear i ng , or ot her pr oc e e di ng, ori n a de pos i t i on. ” W i l s on v. C i ty of A l i c e vi l l e , 779 F . 2d 631, 636 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ; s e e a l s o F e d. R . E vi d. 801( d) ( 1) ( A ) . P r i ori nc ons i s t e nt 3
s t a t e m e nt s “ notf

a l l i ng w i thi n [ the ] bounda r i e s [ of R ul e 801] c a n be us e d f or i m pe a c hm e ntunde rR ul e 607, a l though the y a r e nota dm i s s i bl e a s s ubs t a nt i ve e v id e n c e .” W ils o n , 7 7 9 F .2 d a t 6 3 6 . O f f ic e rM y d e ll’s te s tim o n y s h o w in g D u n c a n ’s p r io rin c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n ts w as no toffe re d t o p rove the truth o f the ou t -of- courtas se rt i on s butra ther t o att ac k the cr edi bi l i ty of D un ca n’ s t es t i m on y duri ng tri al . H ow ever , even as sum i ng such t e s t i m ony w e r e a dm i s s i bl e a s i m pe a c hm e nta nd thus a n e rr oroc c ur r e d, s uc h e rr orHar mless error review requires that “[ a]ny error, defect, irregularity , or variancethat does 4 not affe ct substantial rights must be disreg arde d.” F ed. R. Crim. P. 52( a). “To find harmless error , we must deter

mine that the error did not aff ect the substantial rights of the parties.”United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotingUnited States v. Her nandez, 160 F.3d 661, 670 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 8) ). “ A c on stitution al error . . . must be dis re g arde d as n ot a ff e c tingsu bs tanti al rights if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” I d. (internal quotation marks, punctuation and citation omitted). 9 w a s h a r m le s s in lig h t o f th e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g th e v e r d ic t, i n c l u d i n g : ( 1 ) th e t e s t i m o n y o f Of f i c e rB r o wn a n d Of

f i c e rT a h a r k a s p o tt i n g B r o wn d r i v i n g Du n c a n ’ s c a r ; ( 2 ) Of f i c e rTa h a r k a f

i n d i n g Du n c a n ’ s d r i v e r ’ s l i c e n s e , ATM c a r d a nd s oc i a l s e c ur i ty c a r d i n B r ow n’ s pa nt s poc ke t ; ( 3) the D N A t e s t s s how i ng thatB row n’ s pant s c on t ai ned spl att er s of D un ca n’ s bl oo d; and (4) D un ca n i dent i fy i ng B row n i n a ph ot o l i ne-up. M oreover, atl ea ston e of the cont ra di ct ory 4 st at em ent s D un can m ade w as es t abl i shed throu gh the cr oss- exam i nat i on of O ff i ce r C u n n in g h a m . C on se qu ent l y, B row n i s notent i t l ed t o a new tri al base d o n the di stri ct c o u r t’s lim ita tio n o f

d e f e n s e c o u n s e l’s c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n o f O f f ic e rM y d e ll. C . Ju r y Q u e s t i on L a s tly , B r o w n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it r e s p o n d e d “N o ” to the j ury’ s quest i on . B ef ore di sc ussi ng the qu es t i on and res po nse, w e not e that B row n m akes an addi t i on al ar gu m enton appeal thathe di d n otm ake i n the di stri ct c o u r t. I n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a r g u e d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d to10

prov e thatdefe nd antB row n u se d and di sc harged a part i cul arfi re arm thattra vel ed i n i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e i n o r d e rt o c o n v i c tB r o wn u n d e r§ 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) . On appe a l , B r ow n a ddi t i ona l l y a r gue s tha ta f a t a l va r i a nc e oc c ur r e d be tw e e n the i ndi c tm e nta nd the gove rnm e nt ’ s pr oof w he n the di s tr i c tc our ta ns w e r e d “ N o” w he n the j ury a s ke d w he the rthe gun i n e vi de nc e ha d t o be the gun us e d i n the c a r ja c k in g c r im e f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

th e § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) c o u n t. T he onl y gun tha tthe gove rnm e nti ntr oduc e d i nt o e vi de nc e w a s the . 38 c a l i be rr e vol ve r , s e r i a l num be r08938. T he § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) c ountof the i ndi c tm e nt char ged t hatB row n “ di d k no w i ng l y a nd i nt ent i on al l y posse ss and d i sc harge a f ir e a r m , to w it: a S p o r t A r m s .3 8 c a lib e rs p e c ia l, s e r ia l n o . 0 8 9 3 8 . . . .” T h u s , th is appe a l pr e s e nt s tw o s e pa r a t e que s t i ons : ( 1) doe s a § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) c onvi c t i on f or us e a nd di s c ha r ge of

a f i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e r e qui r e tha tthe gove rnm e nti ntr oduc e the gun i nt o e vi de nc e a nd pr ove the pa r t i c ul a r s of the gun; a n d ( 2 ) if n o t, w a s th e r e a f

a ta l v a r ia n c e b e tw e e n th e in d ic tm e n t a n d th e p r o o f in thi s pa r t i c ul a rtr i a l r e qui r i ng r e ve r s a l of B r ow n’ s c onvi c t i ons be c a us e the i ndi c tm e ntdi d i nc l ude s pe c i f i c s a boutthe gun. T he a ns w e rt o both que s t i ons i s no. F ir s t, w e h a v e h e ld th a t a f ir e a r m n e e d n o t b e e n te r e d in to e v id e n c e to conv i cta def

endanton a § 92 4(c) (1)( A ) c harge. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. W oo druff, 296 F . 3d 1041, 1049 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( c onc l udi ng a s uf f i c i e ntba s i s e xi s t e d f

ortheB e c a us eB ro wn

did no t raisetheva

ri anc eiss uein the dis tric t cou rt , we review only fo r p lain 5 e rror . Unit e d St ate s v . T illmon , 1 95 F .3 d 6 40 , 6 44 -4 5 ( 11 th C ir . 199 9). To prevail und e r p lain error, the de fenda

nt must show that: “(1) an error occur red; (2) the er

ror wa s p l ai n ; (3) it af

fec ted his substantial rights; and (4) it seriously aff ecte d the fairness of the judicial proce eding s.” United States v. Gresha

m, 325 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2003). 11 § 9 2 4 ( c ) c o n v ic tio n b e c a u s e “a lth o u g h th e f ir e a r m u s e d b y W o o d ru f f w a s n o t in e vi de nc e , the j ury he a r d t e s t i m ony a boutthe w e apon f r om thr e e of

the vi c t i m s a nd vi e w e d phot ogr aphi c e vi de nc e de pi c t i ng the gun” ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W illia m s , 3 3 4 F .3 d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( s ta tin g th a t th e § 9 2 4 ( c ) c h a r g e in the i ndi c tm e ntw oul d ha ve be e n c or r e c t“ i f no m e nt i on ha d be e n m a de of the ha ndgun, a nd the ge ne r i c t e r m ‘ f i r e a r m ’ ha d be e n us e d thr oughout ” ) . T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrw he n i tt ol d the j ur y tha tthe gun i nvol ve d ne e d notbe ent er ed i n evi dence i n o rdert o con vi ctB row n for po ss es si on and d i sc harge of a f ir e a r m in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

a c r im e o f

v io le n c e , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 92 4(c) (1)( A ). S e c ond, a l though the § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) c ountr e f e rr e d t o the f

i r e a r m a s a “ . 38 ca li b ersp ec ial, se rial n o . 0 8 9 3 8 ,” th er e w as also n o fa tal v ar ian ce in th is ca se . “A 5
v a r ia n c e o c c u r s w h e n th e f a c ts p r o v e d a t tr ia l d e v ia te f r o m th e f a c ts c o n ta in e d in the i nd i ctm entbu tthe es se nt i al el em ent s of the offens e a re the sa m e. ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. K e l l e r , 916 F . 2d 628, 634 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . “ T he s t a nda r d f or d e te r m in in g w h e th e ra v a r ia n c e is m a te r ia l, a n d th e r e f o r e f a ta l, is tw o f

o ld : ( 1 ) d idTh ere le va nt p art s o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 4( c )( 1) (A) a rethat 6 [A] ny p erson who, during a nd in relation to any

crime of violence...use s or c arrie s a fire arm , o r who , in

fu rt hera nc eof any su c h c ri me, po sse sse s a firea rm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence ...– (i ) b esentenc e d toa

term of imp ri so nment o f n ot l e ss t ha n 5 ye ars ; (ii) if the firear

m is brandished, be sentence d t o a t erm of imprisonment of not less than 7 year s; and (iii) if the fire arm is discharg ed, be sentence d to a term of imprisonment of no t le ss t ha n 1 0 ye ars . 12 a var i ance occur; i f s o, (2) di d the defendantsuff ersubst ant i al prej ud i ce . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . R o b e r ts , 3 0 8 F .3 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h is C o u r t h a s c o n c lu d e d th a t a n in d ic tm e n t is s u e d p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) is c o rr e c t if th e g e n e r ic te r m “f

ir e a r m ” is u s e d , a n d th a t d e ta il ab o u t a fi re arm l i st ed i n the i nd i ctm enti s m er e s urpl usage. S ee W i l l i am s, 33 4 F . 3d at 1231- 32 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( s t a t i ng tha tthe f a c ttha tthe gun i n the § 924( c ) c ount w a s a n “ A K - 47 r i f

l e ” a nd nota “ ha ndgun” a s c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntw a s not re vers i bl e e rr or because “ the w ord ‘ hand gu n’ i n the i nd i ctm entw as m er e surpl usage” ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. M cI nt osh, 23 F . 3d 14 54 , 14 57 (8th C i r. 1994) ( “ A l l e ga t i ons i n the i ndi c tm e nttha ta r e notne c e s s a ry t o e s t a bl i s h a vi ol a t i on of a s t atut e a re surpl usage a nd m ay be di sr egar ded i f the re m ai ni ng al l egat i on s a re s uf f i c i e ntt o c ha r ge a c r i m e . ” ) . I n thi s c a s e , the s pe c i f i c s r e ga r di ng the ty pe of f i r e a r m w e r e m e r e s urpl us a ge be c a us e the s pe c i f i c ty pe of

f i r e a r m i s nota n e l e m e nt o f a § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 )( A ) o ff

en se . S ee 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 )( A ). In li g h t o f D u n ca n ’s 618 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (A). 13

t e s t i m ony tha thi s a s s a i l a ntha d a gun a nd s hothi m – r e i nf or c e d by the r e c ove ry of a bul l eti n h i s abd om i nal ca vi ty – there i s s uffi ci entevi dence thatB row n p osse ss ed a nd di s c ha r ge d a gun i n f ur the r a nc e of

the c a r j a c ki ng. B e c a us e a l l tha tne e ds t o be s how n f ora § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) c onvi c t i on i s tha tB r ow n pos s e s s e d a nd di s c ha r ge d a gun, s e e M c I nt os h, 23 F . 3d a t1458, “ [ n] othi ng i n the r e c or d s ugge s t s tha t[ B r ow n] w a s i n a ny w a y di s a dva nt a ge d by the i nc l us i on of the s urpl us l a ngua ge i n the in d ic tm e n t.” W illia m s , 3 3 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 2 . I I I . CONCL US I ON F o r th e ab o v e st at ed reaso n s, w e affi rm B ro w n ’ s co n v i ct i o n s. AF F I RME D.