[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 20

- 14280
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus DANYEL MEGAL BLACK, a.k.a. Daniel Black,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:19

- cr

- 00376

- JSM

- SPF

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14280 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 1 of 82 Opinion of the Court 20

- 14280

Before R OSENBAUM , G RANT , and B LACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Danyel Black appeals the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and his sentence under t he Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) , 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)

. After review, 1 we affirm Black’s conviction and sentence.
I. DISCUSSION A. Motion to Suppress
Black contends the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence because his probation order did notconsent to warrantless searches of his apartment, there was no reasonable suspicion to search his apartment, and the search warrant

1 “ A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact
, ” which is reviewed de novo

. United States v. Zapata , 180 F.3d 1237, 1240 (11th Cir. 1999). We review the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo

. United States v. Maher , 955 F.3d 880, 884 (11th Cir.2020). Moreover, we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction d e novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v. Rodriguez , 218 F.3d 1243, 1244 (11th Cir. 2000). We review whether a conviction qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA de novo

. United States v. White , 837 F.3d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir. 2016). USCA11 Case: 20-14280 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 2 of 820

- 14280 Opinion of the Court 3 obtained by local law enforcement did not have probable cause without the evidence collected from th e probation officer’s warrantless search, so all evidence collected was fruit of the poisonous

tree. The Fourth Amendment provides individuals with the rightto be secure in their person, home, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizur es and provides that warrants may only be issued for probable cause. U.S. Const. amend. IV. A probationer’s home is protected by the Fourth Amendment in that searches require reasonable suspicion, but they may be conducted without a warrant if there are reasonable grounds for the search of their home because searches are necessary to promote legitimate governmental interests of integrating probationers back into the community and preventing recidivism. United States v. Knights
, 534 U.S. 112, 119

- 22 (2001 ). In Knights, the Supreme Court developed a balancing test to determine if a probationary search is constitutional, whereby the court must weigh the degree to which a search intrudes upon a probationer’s privacy and the degree to which the search is nece ssary to promote legitimate governmental interests. Id. at 118

- 19. Probationers are not subject to reasonable suspicion searches solely because they are on probation. United States v. Carter , 566 F.3d 970, 973 (11th Cir. 2009). However, reasonable

sus picion may be enough to support a warrantless search of a probationer’s house when the Knights balancing test is applied. Id. In Carter , we held that, though the probationer’s terms of probation USCA11 Case: 20-14280 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 3 of 84 Opinion of the Court 20

- 14280
did not include a consent to warrantless home searches, his expectation of privacy was reduced by the term of his probation that allowed home visits by his probation officer, and when weighedagainst the government’s high interest in preventing drug and violence

- related crimes, the warrantless search of his home b ased on reasonable suspicion alone was sufficient. Id. at 974

- 95; see also Griffin v. Wisconsin , 483 U.S. 868, 871

- 72, 875

- 76 (1987) (upholding the denial of a motion to suppress because the probation officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a warrantless search when lawenforcement received a tip that the defendant, a probationer, possessed fire arms in his apartment).
The district court did not err when it denied Black’s motionto suppress because his expectation of privacy in his home was diminished when he received probation instructions that granted his probation officer the right to search his home, and, when balanced against the G overnment’s interest in preventing drug and violence

related crimes, the warrantless search of his apartment by his probation officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Black received probation instructions wit h his probation order that gavehim notice probation officers would conduct routine home verifications and had the right to search his residence. Black signed theseprobation instructions and certified he understood them. Therefore, his expectation of pr ivacy in his home was diminished. See Knights , 534 U.S. at 119. Moreover, days before the probation officer searched Black’s home, Black conceded the ATF received a tip that he possessed a firearm and was distributing illegal narcotics. USCA11 Case: 20-14280 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 4 of 820

- 14280 Opinion of the Court 5

See Griffin , 483 U.S. at 871

- 72 . Since the G overnment has a high interest in preventing drug and violence

- related crimes, under the Knights balancing test, the G overnment had a legitimate interest in preventing those crimes. See Griffin , 483 U.S. at 871; Carter , 566 F.3 d at 974

- 75. Therefore, the G overnment’s interest in preventing drug and violence related crimes coupled with Black’s already

- diminished expectation of privacy while he was on probation, supports that the probation officer’s initial warrantless search of Black’s home did not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Knights
, 534 U.S. at 119. In turn, the subsequent basis for a search warrant was not violative of the Fourth Amendment because there was probable cause to issue a search warrant based upon the probati on officer ’ s discovery of illegal narcotics and ammunition in Black’s apartment, so the evidence collected by law enforcement was not “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See Segura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984) (explaining an unconstitutional sear ch or seizure extendsfrom primary evidence obtained illegally to any other evidence obtained as a direct result of the illegal search with the latter evidence termed, “fruit of the poisonous tree” ). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it de t ermined Black’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and it denied the motion to suppress the evidence

. B. Judgment of AcquittalBlack also asserts the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because he did not have dominion USCA11 Case: 20-14280 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 5 of 86 Opinion of the Court 20

- 14280

and control over his children’s bedroom where the firearm was located, and his girlfriend testified the firearm was hers.

In United States v. Ochoa, we upheld a conviction for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon in violation of § 922(g)(1) where the government presented evidence that the defendant constructively possessed the ammunition that was found in his bedroom along with official documentation listing his personal information and his driver’s license listed the address as his residence. See United States v. Ochoa, 941 F.3d 1074, 1105 (11th Cir. 2019), cert. denied
, 140 S. Ct. 2553 (2020). There, we held a reasonabl e jury could find the defendant exercised dominion or control over the bedroom he resided in, which was sufficient for a finding of constructive possession of the ammunition found therein. Id. Black only contests he possessed the firearm. Since he did not raise possession of the ammunition as an issue on appeal, he has waived the argument that he did not possess the a mmunition. See United States v. Pilati, 627 F.3d 1360, 1364 (11th Cir. 2010) (stating when a defendant fails to raise an issue on appeal, that argument is deemed waived). Trial testimony supports that Black lived in the apartment law enforcement searched in February 2019 with his girlfrie n d Mercedes Cheaves and their two children
, and he exercised dominion and control over the bedroom in w hich he slept.Thus, the Government presented sufficient evidence at trial to allow a finder of fact to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Black possessed, at the very least, the 9 mm ammunition found in USCA11 Case: 20-14280 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 6 of 820

- 14280 Opinion of the Court 7

the linen closet in his bedroom. See Ochoa
, 941 F.3d at 1105. Sincepossession of ammunition as a convicted felon is sufficient to obtain a convi c tion under § 922(g), 2 the district court did not err in denying his motion for a jud g ment of acquittal. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Accordingly, we affirm Black’s conviction under § 922(g)(1).
C. ACCA Finally, Black argues the district court erred in classifying him as an armed career criminal when it determined his prior 2001 Florida conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893 .13, was a “serious drug o ffense” under the ACCA because it does not have a mens rea requirement. We are precluded from reviewing invited errors. United States v. Silvestri , 409 F.3d 1311, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). The invited

error doctrine applies to this issue. See United States v. Brannan , 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining t he invited

- error doctrine applies where a defendant induced or invited the district court’s error )

. Black acquiesced at his sentencing hearing that his 2001 conviction was a “serious drug offe nse” under the ACCA, and thus he is precluded from arguing the opposite here.

2 As such it is not necessary for this Court to analyze whether Black constructively possessed the firearm that was i n his children’s bedroom, or whether he exercised dominion and control over his children’s bedroom. USCA11 Case: 20-14280 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 7 of 88 Opinion of the Court 20

- 14280

II. CONCLUSION The district court did not err in denying Black’s motion to suppress evidence because, on balance, his expectation of privacy in his home was outweighed by th e Government’s interest in preventing drug and violence related crimes, so the searches did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. Further, the district courtdid not err when it denied Black’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was s ufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find Black exercised dominion and control over his bedroom where the ammunition was found, and possession of ammunition alone was sufficient to convict him under § 922(g)(1). Finally, Black is precluded from arguing the district court erred when it classified his 2001 drug conv i ction in Fl or ida under Fl a. Stat. § 893.13 as a “serious drug offense” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because the invited error doctrine applies.
AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 20-14280 Date Filed: 01/05/2022 Page: 8 of 8