2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-25-2007 

# U SA v . Ro ebuck P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4726

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Roebuck " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 385. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/385NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 05- 4726 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DONAL D R OE BU CK , A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 1: 03- C R - 00172 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember19, 2007 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , S M IT H , a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember25, 2007)

OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . T hi s appea l chal l enges t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence t o es t abl i s h t hatA ppel l ant D o n a l d R o e b u c k p o s s e s s e d a f i r e a r m a n d a m m u n i t i o n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . WeT h e D i s t r i c tC o u r th a d s u b j e c tm a t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 2 3 1 . We 1 exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he G overnm entar gues t hatR oebuck ha s w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence beca us e thi s i s s ue w as not r ai s ed i n hi s fi r s tappea l . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of the G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entt hat R o e b u c k w a iv e d h is ri g h t to a p p e a l h is c o n v ic tio n . G i bb s v. C ross , 160 F. 3d 962, 964 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . O n O ct ober22, 2004, R oebuck a ppeal ed fr om t he j udgm entof s ent ence on gr ounds t hathi s s ent ence w as bas ed on the then- m andat or ynatur e of the Feder al S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s , t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t y o f w h i c h w e r e c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n b y B la ke ly v. W as hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) . A ft ert hi s i ni t i al appea l , t he Supr eme C our tappl i ed B la ke ly t o t he Feder al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . O n J ul y14, 2005, t hi s C our tr emanded t he ca s e forr e- s ent enci ng i n l i ghtof B ooker . U

ni t ed Stat es v. R oebuck , 1 4 1 F e d . A p p x . 8 1 (3 d C ir. Ju ly1 4 , 2 0 0 5 ). P rio r to t hi s appea l , nei t herR oebuck nort hi s C our thas addr es s ed the mer i t s of hi s s uffi ci encyof th e e v id e n c e a rg u m e n t. B e c a u se th is C o u rt h a d n o p ro c e d u re in p lac e f o r p o st- B la ke ly r evi ew att he t i m e R oebuck f i l ed hi s i ni t i al appea l , w e conc l ude thatR oebuck di d not w ai ve the pr es entchal l enge t o hi s convi ct i on. R oebuck r ai s es onl ya s uffi ci encyof the e v id e n c e c laim in th e p re se n t ap p e a l. 2 w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. 1 O n J ul y9, 2003, t he G overnm entfi l ed a tw o- countI ndi ctm enti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our t , M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, char gi ng R oebuck w i t h one countof v iolati n g 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ), fe lon in p o sses sion o f f ir ea rm s, an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c), us e of f i r earm s i n r el at i on t o drug t r aff i cki ng. T he G overnm entt hen fi l ed a Super s edi ng In d ictm e n t th a t ad d e d a th ird c o u n t, vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), f e lo n in pos s es s i on of amm uni t i on. T he j ur yconvi ct ed R oebuck of t w o count s of vi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) , one countforpos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on, and one countforpos s es s i on of amm uni t i on bya convi ct ed fe l on. T he J udgm entof C onvi ct i on w a s e n ter e d o n A u g u st 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 . A f ter a p o st- B ookerr emand, R oebuck w as s ent ence d t o, i nt eral i a, for t y - s i x m ont hs i n pr i s on on eac h count , t o run concurr ent l y . T he J udgm ent3

o f C o n v ictio n w a s e n ter e d o n S e p tem b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e so le is su e o n th is a p p e a l is w hethert her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence fora j ur yt o concl ude thatR oebuck w as gui l t yof th e s e tw o c o u n ts b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. “I n r evi ew i ng a j ur yver di ctfors uffi ci encyof the evi dence , w e det erm i ne w hether t her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence t hat , w hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he go vernm ent, w ou l d all ow a rat i on al t ri er of factt o co nv i ct . In ot her w ords, w e m ust cons i dert he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm entand af fi r m t he j udgm enti f ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence fr om w hi ch anyr at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d fi nd gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U nited S tates v. L ore , 4 3 0 F . 3 d 1 9 0 , 2 0 4 (3d C ir . 2005) ( quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A defe ndantcarr i es a “he avybur den” t o pr ove in s u f f ic ie n c y . Id . T he G overnm entm aydefe ata s uffi ci encyof the evi dence chal l enge on c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a lo n e . U ni t ed Stat es v. B obb , 4 7 1 F .3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A b ri ef d iscu ssion o f th e e v iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al w il l i ll u str ate w h yR o eb u ck ’s cl ai m m us tfai l . O n M ar ch 13, 2003, uni form ed mem ber s of the H arr i s bur g pol i ce depart m entand mem ber s of the H arr i s bur g vi ce uni texec ut ed a s ear ch w arr antat R oebuck’ s r es i dence . R el evantt o t hi s appea l , t he s ear ch uncove r ed a H i Poi nt. 40 cal i ber se m i-a u to m a tic p isto l (“ H i P o in t”) a n d a S m ith & W e ss o n .4 0 c a lib e r se m i-a u to m a tic pis t ol ( “S m i t h & W esson”), as w el l as . 40 cal i ber and 9 m m am m un i t i on . T he search al so u n c o v e re d o v e r $ 9 0 0 0 in c a sh , cra c k c o c a in e , an d m a riju a n a . T h e H i P o in t w a s f o u n d in a box on s t eps l eadi ng up t o t he att i c. T he Sm i t h & W es s on w as found i n R oebuck’ s coat4

b eh ind a loc k ed d o o r t o the a tt ic. T h e .40 ca li b er a m m u n it ion w as f o u n d in R o eb u ck ’s b e d ro o m , a n d th e 9 m m a m m u n itio n w a s f o u n d o n a b a lc o n yo u ts id e o f a b e d ro o m . R oebuck’ s convi ct i on on t he tw o § 922( g) ( 1) count s r el at ed t o t he Sm i t h & W es s on and t he box of . 40 cal i beramm uni t i on, s o t he r es tof ourdi s cus s i on w i l l focus pr i m ar i l yon th is f ir e a rm a n d th is a m m u n itio n . A tt r i al , I nves t i gat orL avel l J enki ns of the vi ce s quad t es t i fi ed thathe advi s ed R oebuck of

hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , and R oebuck then s how ed the off i cerhi s s t as h of m arij u an a. Inv esti g ator Je n k ins a lso testi fied that R o eb u ck at firstd en ied th at th ere w ere anyguns i n t he hous e. I nves t i gat orJ enki ns s t at ed that , as anotheroffi cerw as comi ng back do w nst ai rs w i t h a g reen j acket, R oeb uck “y el l ed [Jen kins’ ] nam e t o g et[his ] at t ent i on, and he i ndi cat ed thathe w ant ed t o advi s e [J enki ns ] t hatt her e w as a gun bas i cal l yi ns i de the j acke t . ” I nves t i gat orJ enki ns t es t i fi ed thatR oebuck t ol d hi m t hathe had pos s es s i on of the Sm i t h & W es s on foraboutt w o y ear s . T he off i cerw ho found the Sm i t h & W es s on, L i eut enantJ ohn G os her t , t es t i fi ed thathe l ocat ed the l oaded gun be hi nd th e lo c k e d d o o r a f

ter a sk in g R o e b u c k f

o r a k e y . In v e stig a to r Je n k in s a lso tes tifie d th a t a det ect i ve r ecove r ed the box of . 40 cal i beramm uni t i on fr om a bedr oom on t he s econd f lo o r. R oebuck t es t i fi ed thathe di d notknow att he t i m e of the s ear ch thatt her e w er e any fi r earm s oramm uni t i on i n t he hous e. R oebuck c oncede d, t hough, t hathe made i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s t o I nves t i gat orJ enki ns r egar di ng bot h fi r earm s . A tt r i al and5

agai n on t hi s appea l , R oebuck a dm i t s t hathe t ol d I nves t i gat orJ enki ns t hathe “f ound one of the fi r earm s and the otherbel onged t o a guyatw or k. ” H ow ever , R oebuck t es t i fi ed t hatt hi s s t at ementt o I nves t i gat orJ enki ns w as nott rue. R oebuck t es t i fi ed that“I w as doi ng m ybes tt o cooper at e w i t h t he off i cerand I acc ept ed r es pons i bi l i t yfors om ethi ng t hat w as not m i ne an d thatI di dn ’tbri ng t here. ” O n cross- exam i nati on , R oeb uck al so tes tifie d th a t b o th th e m o n e ya n d th e c ra c k c o c a in e f o u n d in th e g re e n jac k e t b e lo n g e d to h im , b u t n o t th e S m ith & W e s s o n . T he nextw i t nes s forR oebuck, H eath W el l s , t es t i fi ed thathe, r athert han R oebuck, ow ned both t he Sm i t h & W es s on and the H i - Poi ntfi r earm s . W el l s s t at ed thathe had l i ved w i t h R oebuck f

orfi ve ors i x w eeks , and thathe had br oughthi s guns w i t h hi m . T he H i-P o in t w a s re g iste re d to W e lls, len d in g c re d e n c e to th is p o rtio n o f h is te stim o n y . W ith r es pectt o t he Sm i t h & W es s on, W el l s cont ended thathe found i tbyhi s carout s i de the barhe w or ked atw i t h R oebuck. W hen as ked abouthow he s aw t he Sm i t h & W es s on, W e lls s ta te d th a t “ I w a s s ta n d in g th e re ta lk in g to s o m e o n e a n d ju s t lo o k in g a ro u n d . I m ean, I l ooked ar ound a l ot , beca us e y ou can f i nd a l otof s tuff outt her e. So I ’ ve got t en in th e h a b it o f

ju st lo o k in g a ro u n d , w a tch in g th e g ro u n d .” O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , W e lls cl ai m ed thatt he Sm i t h & W es s on w as hi s gun, even though he pr evi ous l ydes cr i bed the gun as a G l ock w i t h bl ack ha ndgr i ps and a s cuff m ark. T he Sm i t h & W es s on had no bl ack ha ndgr i ps and no s cuff m arks . W el l s al s o t es t i fi ed thatt he . 40 cal i beramm uni t i on bel onged t o hi m , al t hough he di d notknow how t he amm uni t i on ended up i n a s econd6

fl oorbedr oom . Si m i l ar l y , W el l s t es t i fi ed thathe di d nothave a keyt o t he att i c, and that th e a tti c w a s n o t lo c k e d w h e n h e liv e d th e re . W e lls n e v e r te stif ied th a t h e p u t th e S m ith & W e s s o n in R o e b u c k ’s g re e n ja c k e t. R oebuck now ar gues t hathe neve rhad ac tual orcons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of the Sm i t h & W es s on ort he . 40 cal i beramm uni t i on. “A per s on w ho, al t hough noti n actual po sses si on , kn ow i ng l yhas bo t h the pow er and t he int enti on ata given t i m e t o ex erci se d o m in io n o r c o n tro l o v e r a th in g , eith e r d ire c tlyo r th ro u g h a n o th e r p e rso n o r p e rso n s, is t hen i n cons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on. ” U n itedS ta tes v . G a rth , 1 8 8 F .3 d 9 9 , 1 1 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T he fa ct s of thi s cas e w er e s uffi ci entt o s how t hatR oebuck ha d atl eas tcons t ruct i ve pos s es s i on of the Sm i t h & W es s on and the . 40 cal i beramm uni t i on. Fi r s t , R oebuck co n ce d es th at he li v ed alon e a t th e ti m e o f th e M arc h 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 sea rch . S ec o n d , the ju ry c o u ld h a v e re a so n a b lyin f e rre d f ro m th e tes tim o n yo f

th e o f f ice rs, R o e b u c k , an d W e lls t hat R oeb uck kn ow i ng l yexerci sed con t rol ov er the fir earm and t he b ull et s. T he fir st r eas onabl e i nfer ence t he j ur ycoul d have made w as t hatW el l s s i m pl yl i ed forhi s fr i end, a n d th a t W e lls n e v e r p o ss e ss e d th e S m ith & W e ss o n o r th e a m m u n iti o n . W e lls i ncons i s t ent l ydes cr i bed the gun, coul d notexpl ai n how t he amm uni t i on ended up i n t he b e d ro o m , a n d p ro v id e d a q u e s tio n a b le s to ry a b o u t h o w h e f o u n d th e g u n b yh is c a r. A l ong t he s ame l i nes , t he j ur ycoul d have r eas onabl ydi s bel i eved Roebuck’ s as s er t i on t hat he knew aboutt he drugs and moneyi n t he gr een j acke t , butnott he fi r earm . T he s econd r eas onabl e i nfer ence t he j ur ycoul d have made w as t hat , even i f W el l s i ni t i al l yhad contr ol7

of the Sm i t h & W es s on and the amm uni t i on, R oebuck ga i ned contr ol once W el l s m oved outof R oebuck’ s hous e. W el l s di d nots t at e thathe putt he Sm i t h & W es s on i n t he gr een jac k e t, an d tes tifie d th a t h e k e p t th e f ire a rm a n d th e a m m u n iti o n to g e th e r. A re a so n a b le j ur ycoul d have c oncl uded thatR oebuck moved both t he fi r earm and amm uni t i on t o ot her p lac e s in h is h o m e a f

ter W e lls lef

t. A g a in st th e b a c k d ro p o f b o th th e se re a so n a b le i nfer ence s i s R oebuck’ s conce s s i on t hathe admi t t ed t o I nves t i gat orJ enki ns t hathe knew aboutt he Sm i t h & W es s on and the amm uni t i on. A tt r i al and on appe al , R oebuck a r gues t hat he m ade thi s conce ssi on becau se he w anted t o co op erat e and becau se he ha d to use t he bathr oom . T he j ur yw as notr equi r ed t o acc eptthi s s t or yas t rue. In lig h t o f

th e se v e ra l in c o n sis ten c ies in R o e b u c k ’s te stim o n y , the in c re d ib le t es t i m onyof H eath W el l s , t he evi dence agai ns tR oebuck s uppl i ed byt he t es t i m onyof I nves t i gat orJ enki ns and Li eut enantG os her t , and the di s coveryof the Sm i t h & W es s on as w el l as t he amm uni t i on, w e conc l ude thatt her e w as ampl e, s ubs t ant i al evi dence fr om w h ich a n yra tio n a l trier o f f a c t co u ld f

in d g u iltb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. W e w ill t her efor e aff

i rm th e ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e .