# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 14 46

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ant ho ny Maur ic e Walls

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 14 , 20 17
Fil ed : M arch 13 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

A ju ry co nv ic te d Ant ho ny M a u r ic e W al ls of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a

fir earm in vi ol at io n o f 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t 1

Th e Hon or ab le Reb ecca Goo dg am e Ebi ng er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e , 1

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.se nt en ced W al ls to t h e s ta tu to ry m ax im um of 12 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. W al ls

ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e ev id en ce at tri al di d no t su pp or t th e ve rd ic t, th at th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng crac k co cai ne ev id en ce, an d th at hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e.

W al ls als o c ha ll en ge s h is sen te nc e. W e aff irm.

Sh or tl y aft er m id ni g h t o n O ct ob er 24

, 20 15

, po li ce of fic ers in Bu rli ng to n,

Io wa, res po nd ed to a 91 1 cal l rep or ti ng t h a t a b l a c k m an weari ng a gr ay swe at sh irt

an d bl ack pa nt s was carr y in g a gu n in a res id en ti al ne ig hb or ho od

. Offi cers arre st ed

a su sp ect m at ch in g th e cal le r’s de sc ri p t i o n a n d reco ve red on th e gr ou nd ne arb y a
sh ot gu n al on g wit h red sh ot gu n sh el ls an d a pl as t i c ba g co nt ai ni ng sm al l ba gs of

crac k c oc ai ne . Pol ic e la te r id en ti fie d t he su sp ect as Wall s.

Ja co b W il li am s an d Co dy Neff te s t i f i e d du rin g tri al th at W al ls ret rie ve d a
sh ot gu n fr om

W il li am s’s h ou se , wher e Walls ha d b een earl ie r in th e ev en in g. Neff

te st ifi ed th at be fo re W al ls le ft th e ho us e he lo ad ed th e sh o t g u n w i t h red sh ot gu n
sh el ls ; gr ab be d a cl ear, pl as ti c bo tt le of vo dk a; an d ga ve W il li am s an d Neff a co up le

of ba gs of crac k co cai ne

. Keit h Dav is

, All en Bro wn, an d Offi cer Bl ak e Cam ero n, al l

te st ifi ed th at th ey sa w W al ls in th e ne ig hb or ho od whe re he w as arre st ed an d th at he

ha d b een carr y in g a sh ot gu n a nd a cl ear b ot tl e o f al co ho l at th e ti m e.

Defen se co un se l’s t ria l s tra te gy was to di sc red it th e g ov ern m en t’s wi tn es se s.

Co un se l cro ss -ex am in ed th e ey e-wi tn es se s ab ou t th ei r al co ho l an d dr ug us e th e ni gh t

of th e arre st an d th e te st i f yi ng of fic ers ab ou t th ei r ab il it y to pe rcei ve th at ev en in g.

Defen se co un se l al so m ov ed to ex cl ud e al l refe ren ces to th e crac k co cai ne ev id en ce.

Fo l l o w i ng W al ls ’s co nv ic ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of

acq ui tt al an d n ew tr ia l.

The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at W al ls ha d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of VI,

a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 30

, an d a res ul t a nt se nt en ci ng ran ge of 16 8 to 21 0 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t un de r th e Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s Man ua l (Gui de li ne s)

.

-2

-A s i n di cat ed earl ie r, th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e st at ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce o f

12 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t.

W al ls arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc r e t i o n w he n it de ni ed hi s

m ot io n fo r a ne w t ria l ba se d on hi s cl ai m th at th e ve rd ic t was a g a in st th e weig ht of

th e ev id en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Kni gh t, 8 00 F.3d 49 1, 50 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (s ta nd ard

of rev ie w). “ Upo n th e de fen da nt ’s m ot io n, t he co ur t m ay va cat e an y jud gm en t an d

gr an t a ne w tri al if th e in te res t of jus ti ce so req ui res .” Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 33 (a). W he n

ru li ng on th e m ot io n, th e di st ric t co ur t “ can weig h th e ev id en ce, di sb el ie ve wit ne ss es ,

an d gr an t a ne w tri al ev en whe re th ere is su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce to su st ai n th e ve rd ic t.”

Kni gh t, 80 0 F.3 d at 50 4 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thi s rem ed y , ho wev er, “ is res erv ed fo r ex cep ti on al cas es in whi ch th e ev id en ce pr ep on de rat es
he av il y ag ai ns t th e ve rd ic t,” to su ch an ex te nt th at “ a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce m ay ha ve

oc cu rred .” Id . at 5 04 -0 5 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

To pr ov e th at W al ls was a f e l o n i n p o ss es si on of a fir earm , th e go ve rn m en t

ne ed ed to sh ow “ (1 ) [a] pr ev io us co nv ic ti on of a cri m e pu ni sh ab le by a te rm of

im pr is on m en t ex ceed in g on e y ear, (2 ) kn owi ng po ss es si on of a fir earm , an d (3 ) [th at ]

th e fir earm was in or affe ct in g in te rs ta te co m m erce .” Uni te d St at es v. Mo nt go m ery,

70 1 F.3 d 12 18

, 12 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 )). Alt ho ug h W al ls

arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e th e se co nd el em en t, ey e-wi tn es s te st im on y
fro m fiv e wit ne ss es co nf

irmed th at he ha d a sh ot gu n in hi s po ss es si on

. The te st im on y

se t fo rth a co ns is te nt de sc rip ti on of it em s th at were bo th in W al ls ’s po ss es si on an d

fo un d ne ar th e s cen e of hi s arre st

. Thi s te st im on y , c ou pl ed wit h W al ls ’s p ro xi m it y

to th e sh ot gu n, p ro vi de d a m pl e su pp or t fo r th e v erd ic t. 2

To th e ex te nt th at W al ls arg ue s th at t h e d i s t r i c t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s 2

m ot io n o f acq ui tt al , we di sa gr ee, g iv en th e wei gh t o f th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im

.

-3

-W al ls al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gr an te d hi s m ot io n fo r a

ne w tri al be cau se it erre d in ov erru li ng hi s ob jecti o n t o t he ad m is si on of th e crac k

co cai ne ev id en ce. Und er Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3, “ [t]he co ur t m ay ex cl ud e
rel ev an t ev id en ce if it s pr ob at iv e va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by a da ng er of

. . .

un fai r pr ejud ic e,” whi ch is de fin ed as an “ un du e te nd en cy to su gg es t de ci si on on an

im pr op er ba si s, co m

m on ly, th ou gh no t ne ces sa ril y , an em ot io na l on e.” Fed

. R. Evi d.

40 3 an d ad vi so ry co m

m it te e’s no te s. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s e v id en ti ary

ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc re t i o n, gi vi ng gr eat de fere nc e to th e “ di st ric t co ur t’s

ba la nc in g of th e rel at i v e v a l u e o f a pi ece of ev id en ce an d it s pr ejud ic ia l effe ct .”

Uni te d St a t e s v

. J i m in ez, 48 7 F.3 d 11 40

, 11 45 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. W al ls arg ue s th at th e crac k coc ai ne ev id en ce had no pr ob at iv e va lu e an d th at it was

pr ejud ic ia l be cau se it “ im pl ie d he was a ba d pe rs on [] an d a dr ug de al er.” The di st ric t

co ur t reject ed th is arg um en t, ex pl ai ni ng th at th e e vi de nc e was “ ‘ine xt ric ab ly

in te rtwi n e d ’ wit h th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng W al ls ’s ch arg e fo r fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm .” W e ag ree. The crac k co cai ne ev i d e n c e s e r v e d as a li nk

be twee n th e pl ace whe re th e sh ot gu n was ret rie ve d an d th e area whe re it was fo un d,

whi ch im pl ic at ed W al ls

.

W al ls fu rth er arg ue s th at a ne w tri al is warra nt ed be cau se hi s tri al co un se l was

in effe ct iv e. To es ta bl is h th is cl ai m , W al ls m us t sh ow th at hi s “ co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce
fel l be lo w an ob

jecti ve st an da rd o f reas on ab le co m pe te nc e, an d th at th e de fic ie nt

pe rfo rm an ce pr ejud ic ed [h im ]. ” Uni te d St at es v. Vil la lp an do

, 25 9 F.3 d 93 4, 93 8 (8 th

Ci r. 20 01 ) (ci ti ng St ric kl an d v. W as hi ng to n, 46 6 U.S. 6 6 8

, 6 87 (1 98 4) ). W he n a
de fen da nt rai s e s a cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l in a m ot io n fo r a ne w
tri al , we rev ie w th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ru li ng for ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Id

.

Alt ho ug h th e ap pr op ria te ve hi cl e fo r rai si ng an in effe ct iv e as s i s t a n c e of

co un se l cl ai m typic al ly is a co ll at eral

, po st -co nv ic ti on act io n un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

,

a di st ric t co ur t m ay co ns id er th e “ m ot io n fo r ne w tri al if it ha s de ve lo pe d an ad eq ua te

reco rd on th e is su e.” Vil la lp an do

, 25 9 F.3d at 93 8 (c it in g Uni te d Stat es v. Stev en s,

14 9 F.3 d 74 7, 74 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 )). The di st ric t co ur t he re ad dr es se d W al ls ’s cl ai m ,

-4

-whi ch was li m it ed to hi s at to rn ey ’s fai lu re to cal l Guy W il li am s to te st ify th at W al ls

di d n o t “m e s s w i t h fir earm s” an d th at Bro wn di d “ no t li ke W al ls .” In li gh t of th e

ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce es ta bl is hi ng th at he po ss es se d th e sh ot gu n, W al ls ha s fai le d

to est ab li sh th at he was p reju di ced by his att or ne y ’s dec is io n n ot to cal l Will ia m s.

Wal ls arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r d u r i n g

se nt en ci ng a n d t h a t it im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se nt en ce. W he n

co ns id eri ng whe th er a di st ric t co ur t ha s pr oc ed ur al ly erre d, “ ‘[w] e do no t req ui re [th e]

co ur t to pr ov id e a m ech an ic al reci ta ti on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s

. . . . Rat he r, it

si m pl y m us t be cl ear fro m th e reco rd th at th e di st ric t co ur t act ua ll y co ns id e r ed th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in de te rm in in g th e se nt en ce.’” Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d

45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W al ki ng Eag le

, 55 3 F.3 d 65 4, 65 9
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). W al ls arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t “ fai le d to ack no wled ge or st at e

th at it ha d co ns id ered an y se nt en ce be twee n 59 an d 12 0 m on th s.” The di st ric t co ur t

ex pl ai ne d, ho wev er, th at “ I ha ve co ns id ered al l [th e Sect io n 35 53 se nt en ci ng fact or s]

in de te rm in in g th e ap pr op ria te se nt en ce” an d th at “ [u ]lti m at el y , th e se nt en ce I im po se

m us t be su ffi ci en t bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry to se rv e th e pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng .”

Im pl ic it in th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at i o n i s t h e fact th at it ha d co ns id ered sh or te r

te rm s of im

pr is on m en t bu t fo un d th at th ey w o u l d no t ach ie ve th e de si red en ds of

se nt en ci ng

.

As fo r th e cl ai m th at th e se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

, t h e d i st ric t

co ur t co ns id ered W al ls ’s cri m in a l hi st or y an d th e ci rcu m st an ces of hi s arre st in

im po si ng a Gui de li ne s ran ge se nt en ce, whi ch we m ay pr es um e to be reas on ab le

. See

Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 1 (q uo ti ng W al ki ng Eag le

, 55 3 F.3 d at 65 9) (s ta ti ng th at we

m ay pr es um e a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce is reas on ab le if it i s w i t hi n th e Gui de li ne s

ran ge ).

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-