A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w i t houtor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t er m s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t16,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 3447 v. (D . K ansas) M A RL O J . M I M S,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No. 0 5 - CR- 2 0 0 7 9 - J W L)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. M ar l o J . M i m s w as char ged i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D is tr ic t o f

K a n s a s w ith p o s s e s s io n o f a fir e a rm b ya c o n v ic te d fe lo n , s ee 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g) (1) . H e w as conv i ct ed b ya j uryand sent enced t o 2 35 m on t hs’ im p ri s o n m e n t. O n a p p e a l h e c h a lle n g e s o n e o f th e ju ry in s tru c tio n s . W e a ffir m .-2-

I . BA CKGROUND O n t he ni ghtof February2, 2005, O ffi cerJ eff r eyG ar dnerof the K ans as C i t y , K ans as , Pol i ce D epart m entw as patr ol l i ng t he ar ea ne arT hi r t eenth and Q u in d a ro S tre e ts w h e n h e o b se rv e d a sp e e d in g c a r. A f ter a b rie f

p u rsu it, M r . M i m s , t he dr i ver , l os tcontr ol of the ca rand s t ruck a ut i l i t ypol e. O ffi cer G a rd n e r s to p p e d h is p a tr o l c a r b e h in d M r. M im s ’s n o w -d is a b le d v e h ic le . M r . M i m s gotoutof the ca rand r an aw ay . O ffi cerG ar dnerpur s ued M r . M i m s on foot , cat chi ng up t o hi m onl yaft erM r . M i m s t r i pped overa fe nce thathe had k n o c k e d d o w n w ith h is c a r. M r. M im s th e n p u n c h e d O ffic e r G a rd n e r i n th e fa c e . O ffi cerG ar dners t ruck bac k, and theyexcha nged furt herbl ow s . D ur i ng t he fi ght M r . M i m s gr as ped O ffi cerG ar dner ’ s s er vi ce f i r earm and att empt ed t o pul l i tout o f t h e h o l s t e r . Th e t wo p r o c e e d e d t o fi g h tfo rc o n t r o l o f t h e g u n , wi t h M r . M i ms i ni t i al l yunabl e t o getcontr ol of i tbeca us e O ffi cerG ar dnerkepthi s hand on the hol s t ers nap. A ts om e poi ntt he s nap popped ope n and, acc or di ng t o O ffi cer G ar dner , M r . M i m s s tum bl ed bac kw ar ds w i t h t he gun i n hi s hands . O ffi cer G ar dnert es t i fi ed thatM r . M i m s w as t hen “i n compl et e and s ol e pos s es s i on of t h[e] fi r earm . ” R . V ol . I I at43. O ffi cerG ar dnereventual l ym anage d t o s ei ze the gun and ai m i tatM r . M i m s , w ho fl ed. O ffi cerG ar dnerl at erappr ehende d M r. M i m s.-3-

I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r. M im s w a s c h a rg e d w ith v io latin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g ), w h ich m a k e s it unl aw ful fora convi ct ed fe l on “t o s hi p ort r ans por ti n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn c o m m e rc e , o r p o ss e ss in o r a ffe c tin g c o m m e rc e , an yfire a rm o r a m m u n iti o n ; o r to re c e iv e a n yfire a rm o r a m m u n iti o n w h ich h a s b e e n sh ip p e d o r tra n sp o rte d in i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce. ” J ur yI ns t ruct i on N o. 12 gave the fol l ow i ng expl anat i on of pos s es s i on: A p e rso n h a s a c tu a l p o ss e ss io n o f so m e th in g if

h e o r sh e k n o w in g ly has di r ectphy s i cal contr ol overi tata gi ven t i m e. I f y ou fi nd bey ond a re aso n ab le do u b t th at M r. M im s h eld th e fir ea rm ev en fo r a m ere se c o n d o r tw o , the n y o u m a yfin d th a t th e fire a rm w a s in h is po sses si on w i t hin the m eaning o f t he w ord “po sses s” as used i n these i ns t ruct i ons , unl es s y ou ar e notper s uaded be y ond a r eas onabl e doubt t h a tM r . M i ms k n e w wh a th e p o s s e s s e d wa s a fi r e a r m. R . V o l. I D o c . 2 4 a t 1 4 . O n a p p e a l M r. M im s c h a llen g e s th e ju ryin stru c tio n b e c a u se it “im p ro p e rly narr ow [ed] t he j ur yi nqui r yfr om ‘ di r ectphy s i cal contr ol ’ , t o w hethert he w eapon w as ‘h eld.’” A p lt . B r. at 15 . H e c o n tend s tha t th e “ instruction p erm itted th e jury t o fi nd [hi m ] gui l t yfr om t he mom ent. . . he gr abbed the pi s t ol gr i p” bec aus e he c o u ld b e c o n sid e re d to h a v e “ h e ld ” th e g u n a lth o u g h h e d id n o t p o ss e ss so le c o n tr o l o v e r i t ( in a s m u c h a s O ffic e r G a rd n e r a ls o h a d h is h a n d o n th e g u n ). Id . A t trial, h o w e v e r, M r. M im s d id n o t o bjec t o n th is g ro u n d . H is e n tire o bjec tio n to t he instruct i on w as:-4-

W i t h r e s p e c tt o I n s t ru c t i o n 1 2 , w e w o u l d o bj e c tt o t h a t , s p e c i fi c a l l y, th e se c o n d se n ten c e o f th a t. W h ile I’ m fa m ili a r w ith b o th T e n th C ir cu itan d o ther c ase law d efining tr an sit o ryo r m o m en tary p o ss e ss io n , the c a se a t lea st in th e T e n th C irc u it th a t I re c a ll sp e c ifica llyw a s th e o n e w h e re th e p e rso n w a s c h a rg e d , I th in k , w ith an A K - 47 ors om e otherki nd of as s aul tr i fl e and the al l egat i on w as h e c arried it from the g u n sh o p an d p u t i t i n the b ac k o f so m eo n e’s p ick u p , an d th e T e n th C irc u it b a sic a llysa id y o u d id n ’t g e t a m om ent aryort r ans i t or ypos s es s i on i ns t ruct i on i n t hat

— bas ed on that b a se b e c a u se h e d e n ies e v e r h a v in g th e g u n a t all, an d so I th in k in t h e — I t h i n k t h e c o u r ti s t a k i n g o u to f c o n t e x tt h e s e c o n d - o r - t wo hol di ng of a f

i r earm beca us e the ca s es t hatI r eca l l

— perhaps t he c o u rt’s r e se a rc h is m o re e x ten siv e th a n m in e b e c a u se I o b v io u sly m i s s ed them. I t hi nk t he i ns t ruct i on as gi ven depr i ves t he j ur yof the oppor tuni t yt o eval uat e the ent i r e cont extort ot al i t yof the c i r c u ms t a n c e o rt h e o v e r a l l fi g h tb e t we e n M r . Ga r d n e ra n d M r . M i ms a n d t h a t , a c c e p t i n g M r . Ga r d n e r ’ s t e s t i mo n yt h a tt h e r e wa s s o me br i ef, t r ans i t or ypos s es s i on i n t he cont extof thatfi ght , I t hi nk t hat depr i ves t he j uryof the oppor tuni t yt o eval uat e w hetherornoti n t he cont extof the fi ghtt hatcons t i tut es t he ac tual abi l i t yt o have di r ect p h y sic a l co n tro l o v e r th e o bjec t. R . V o l. I I a t 9 3 -9 4 . “A par t yw ho obj ect s t o an i ns t ruct i on . . . m us tdo s o on t he r ecor d, s t at i ng di s t i nct l yt he mat t erobj ect ed t o and the gr ounds of the obj ect i on. ” Fed. R . C i v. P . 5 1 (c )(1 ). M r. M im s’ o bjec tio n to Ju ryIn stru c tio n 1 2 d id n o t d istin c tlysta te t he i s s ue he now r ai s es on appea l . W e ther efor e r evi ew hi s curr entcl ai m under th e p la in -e rr o r d o c tr in e . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . A ten c io , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 3 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). O n p lain -e rro r re v iew w e w ill re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t b e lo w o n lyif “ther e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) t hati s pl ai n, w hi ch ( 3) affect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( 4) s er i ous l yaffect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al-5-

pr ocee di ngs . ” Un itedS ta tes v . G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (en b an c). A l t hough M r . M i m s poi nt s outt hatt he w or d “hel d” i n t he s econd s ent ence o f th e ju ryin stru c tio n m a ysu g g e st th a t M r. M im s c o u ld b e g u iltyif h e m e re ly had hi s hand on the gun w i t houthavi ng excl us i ve contr ol overi t , s uch a r eadi ng w oul d contr adi ctt he cl eari m por tof the pr i ors ent ence , w hi ch equa t es pos s es s i on w i t h “di r ectphy s i cal contr ol . ” The purpos e of the s econd s ent ence w as t o cl ar i fy th e te m p o ra l e le m e n t o f th e c ri m e , n o t to a lte r t h e m e a n in g o f th e p ri o r s e n te n c e . E ven i f the pos s i bl e ambi gui t yof the s econd s ent ence caus ed the i ns t ruct i on t o be e rro n e o u s, it w a s n o t p la in ly so . A p p are n tl yn eit h er p artyn o r th e d istri ct co u rt per cei ved thi s ambi gui t yatt r i al . I n par t i cul ar , M r . M i m s does nots ugges tt hat t he pr os ecut orar gued t o t he j ur yt hatt he offens e w as compl et e the mom enthe h a d h is h a n d o n th e g u n . M r. M im s h a s n o t e s ta b lis h e d p la in e rr o r. I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge