FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 27, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 13540 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -001 75 -C R -C -N 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 M A R C U S J A B O R A L L S , 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 M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 27, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntM a r c us A l l s appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m bySee Eleventh Circuit C riminal Pattern Jury Instructions , Trial Instruction No. 7 (2003). 1 2 a f el on , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). A l l s a rgues thatthe ci rc ui t ’ s patt ern A l l en c h a r g e g iv e n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in h is c a s e w a s in h e r e n tly c o e r c iv e .

1 O urr e vi e w of

“ a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o gi ve a n A l l en char ge i s l i m i t ed t o eval uat i ng the coerc i ve i m pactof the charge. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . T

r u jillo , 146 F . 3d 838, 846 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . W he n the di s tr i c tc our tdoe s notpol l the j ury pr i or t o rea di ng the A l l en c ha r ge , a s he r e , w e w i l l r e ve r s e onl y i f w e f i nd unde rthe to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t th e c h a r g e w a s in h e r e n tly c o e r c iv e . I d. I n A l l en v. U

ni ted Stat es , 16 4 U . S . 49 2, 50 1-02 , 17 S . C t . 15 4, 15 7 (18 96 ), th e S u p r e m e C o u r t u p h e ld a c h a r g e u r g in g ju r o r s to r e c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e ir o p in io n s w e r e r e a s o n ab le a n d to f u lf ill th e ird u ty to d e c id e th e c a s e if c ons c i e nt i ous l y pos s i bl e . T he S upr e m e C our tc onc l ude d tha t“ [ t ] he ve ry obj e c tof th e ju ry s y s te m is to s e c u r e u n a n im ity b y a c o m p a r is o n o f v ie w s , a n d b y a r g u m e n ts am on g the j urors them se l ves. ” I d. a t 5 0 1 . T h e r e f

o r e , th e C o u r t s ta te d th a t it

“ c a nnotbe the l a w tha te a c h j ur ors houl d notl i s t e n w i th de f e r e nc e t o the a r gum e nt s , a nd w i th a di s trus tof hi s ow n j udgm e nt , i f

he f i nds a l a r ge m a

j or i ty of the j ury t aki ng a di ff

er entvi ew of the ca se fr om w hathe do es hi m se l f. ” Id . I n U ni ted Stat es v. R ey , 8 1 1 F . 2 d 1 4 5 3 , 1 4 5 9 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) , we c ons i de r e d ourc i r c ui t ’ s pa tt e rn A l l en c ha r ge a nd s t a t e d tha ta n A l l en char ge w hi chIn Bo nn e r v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 2 adopted a s binding pre cedent all of the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to October

1, 1981. 3 urges j urors t o rec on si der w hether thei r dou bti s r ea sonabl e “ vi rtual l y guara nt ee s j ury c on fusi on ” a nd “ ca n i nt i m i dat e i nd i vi du al j urors. ” I d. a t1 4 5 9 . E v e n s o , we up hel d the A l l en c h a r g e b a s e d o n o u rp r e c e d e n t. I d. a t 1 4 6 0 ; see a l

so U ni ted Stat es v . D i c ke rs on , 248 F . 3d 1036, 1050- 51 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . I n U ni ted Stat es v. Chi gbo , 38 F . 3d 543, 545 ( 11th C i r . 1994) , w e not e d tha tthe s hor tt i m e i n w hi c h a j ury r eturned i t s ver di ctaf t erre ce i vi ng the A l l en c ha r ge di d notc ha nge our deci si on . A l so, w e have hel d thata j ury does notneed t o i nd i ca t e adeadl ock be f or e the c our ti s s ue s a n A l l en c h a r g e . G o vern m en t o f C a n a l Zo n e v. Fea rs , 528 F . 2d 64 1, 64 4 (5th C i r. 19 76 ). 2 C o n s i d e r i n g th e t o t a l i ty o f th e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h o wn i n th e r e c o r d , we concl ud e thatthe A l l en c h a r g e g iv e n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s n o t in h e r e n tly c oe r c i ve . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f f i r m A l l s ’ s c onvi c t i on. AF F I RME D.