FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 12, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 12 58 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 02 45 -WSD-AJB-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CRAIG COURTNEY CARR OLL, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, BLACK, an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Crai g C ou rtn ey

Carr ol l ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d 2 95 -m on th to ta l se nt en ce fo r in te rfer en ce wi th in te rs ta te co m m erce th ro ug h ro bb ery (Co un t 1 ), us eof

a fi rearm du rin g acri m e o f vi ol en ce (C ou nt2), a ndpo ss es si on of afir earm by a co nv ic te d fe lo n (C ou nt3), i n v io la ti onof 1 8 U.S.C. § § 9 22 (g )(1 ), 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i i), 19 51 . Bas edon th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l, Ca rro ll rob be d a n a rm or edcar at gu np oi ntwhenitst op pe d t o d el iv er m on ey to a co nv en ie nc e st or e. No re ve rs ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . On ap pe al , Carro ll arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al ba se d o n h is cla im th atth e in di ctm en t was am en de d im pe rm is si bl y . W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Uni te d S ta te s v . W ard , 48 6 F .3d12 12 , 12 20 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Andwe rev ie w de n ov o t he su ffi ci en cy of an i nd ic tm en t. Un it edSta te s v . W ay ers ki , 62 4 F .3d13 42 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The Fif th Am en dm en t g uaran te es th ata de fen da ntcanbe co nv ic te d o nl y of cri m es ch arg edin th e in di ctm en t. Ward, 4 86 F.3dat 1 22 6. Th us , th e co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t o f anin di ctm en t -- whi ch oc curs “ whe n t he ess en ti al ele m en ts of t he of fen se co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ctm en t ar e al te redto bro ad enth e p os si bl e b as es for co nv ic ti on be y on d wh atis co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ctm en t” -- co ns ti tu te s p er s e rev ers ib le erro r. Id. at12 26 -2 7. A v ari an ce, o n t he ot he r ha nd , requi res rev ers al on ly if th e d efen da ntest ab li sh es th atth e v ari an ce s ub st an ti al ly prejud ic edhi s es se nt ia l ri gh ts . Id. at12 27 . A vari an ce “ oc cu rs when th e fac ts pro ve d a t tria l 2de vi at e fro m th e fac ts co nt ai ne d i n the in di ctm en t b utth e es se nt ia l el em en ts of t he of fen se are the same.” Id. Here, Co un t 1 of C arro ll ’s in di ctm en t al le ge d t ha t h e st ol e m on ey

“be lo ng in g t o” Dunba r Arm or edCar Co m pany, butth e ev id en ce i nt ro du cedat tri al est ab li sh edth atth e st ol enm on ey be lo ng edto th e co nv en ie nc e st or e o wne r. Bas edon th is di sc rep an cy , Carro ll m ov edforjud gm en t o f acqui tt al , arg ui ng th at th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pro ve th athe was g ui lt y of C ou nt1 as ch arg ed . The 1 di st ric t co urt d en ie d C arro ll ’s m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th atth e la ng ua ge ab ou t the own ers hi p o f th e m on ey

co ul d b e ig no redas s ur

pl us ag e. W e ag ree. Carr ol l d oe s n otdi sp ut e th atth e in di ctm en t al le ge d b ot h e ss en ti al ele m en ts of a se ct io n 1 95 1( a) v io la ti on , in cl ud in g t ha t h e co m m it te d arob be ry

an d t ha t the ro bb ery ha d a n e ffec t o n i nt ers ta te co m m erce . See Un it edSta te s v . Dean , 51 7 F.3 d 1 22 4, 1 22 7- 28 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ [t]o o bt ai n aco nv ic ti on for co ns pi rin g t o i nt erfe re wi th in te rs ta te co m m erce th ro ug h ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n o f [s ect io n 1 95 1( a)], the go ve rn m en t n eedon ly pro ve a ro bb ery an d e ffec t o n co m m erce .”). Meanwh il e, own ers hi p o f th e st ol enpro pe rty is n otaness en ti al el em en t o f th atoff

en se . See i d. Th us , th atpo rti on of C arro ll ’s in di ctm en t was
Carroll also argues that his conviction for use of a firea rm during a crime of violence, pursuant 1 to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) , is invalid b ec au s e i t re l ied on his conviction in Count 1 as an underlying offe nse. 3“un ne ces sa ry to an d i nd ep en de ntof t he all eg at io ns of the off en se ” an d c ou ldbe ig no red . See Ward, 4 86 F.3dat 1 22 7. Bec au se subm is si on of C arro ll ’s cas e to th e jury -- des pi te ev id en ce tha t Dunba r di d n otin factown th e st ol enm on ey -- d idno t al te r th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e o ffen se , itdi d n otco ns ti tu te a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t. See id . at 1 22 6. It di d, h owe ve r, co ns ti tu te a va rianc e b ecau se th e fac ts pro ve d a t tria l d ev ia te d fr om th os e al le ge d i n t he in di ctm en t. See id . at 1 22 7. Ca rro ll fai ls , ho wev er, t o a rg ue on ap pe al eit he r th athe was s ub st an ti al ly prejud ic edby the va ria nc e o r th atth e su rp lu sa ge sh ou ldno t h av e b een ig no red . Thu s, h e ab an do ns th os e arg um en ts an d fai ls to de m on strat e rev ers ib le erro r. See i d.; Uni te d S ta te s v . Jerni ga n, 3 41 F.3d 12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Carr ol l al so arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enit ex cl ud edth e p ol y gr ap h t es t re su lt s o f a g ov ern m en t wi tn es s, wh ic h C arro ll so ug ht to in tro du ce fo r im

pe ach m en t p ur

po se s. We revi ew a d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to ex cl ud e th e res ul ts of apo lygrap h t es t fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Hen de rs on , 40 9 F .3d12 93 , 13 03 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). Pol y gr ap h re su lt s m ay be in tro du cedforim

pe ach m en t p ur

po se s o nl y

if, am on g o th er thi ng s, the ev id en ce i s adm is si bl e u nd er the Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e. Id . at 1 30 2.

4W e are unpe rs ua de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n re fu si ng

to adm itth e p ol y gr ap h re su lt s i nt o e vi de nc e. Fir st , Carro ll so ug htto in tro du ce the po lygrap h re su lt s dur in g t he cro ss -ex am in at io n o f a g ov ern m en t wi tn es s wh o ne it he r di sc us se d t he po lygrap h t es t dur in g h is di rectex am in at io n n orha d pe rs on al in vo lv em en t wi th adm in is te rin g t he tes t. As s uc h, Ca rro ll ’s li ne of qu es ti on in g was ou ts id e th e sc op e o f cro ss -ex am in at io n; an d t he di st ric t co urt h ad di sc ret io n t o e xc lu de th e ev id en ce. See Fe d.R .Evi d. 6 11 (b ); Un it edSta te s v . 2 Guz m an , 16 7 F .3d13 50 , 13 52 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (n ot in g t ha t “ [a] di st ric t co urt h as wid e d is cret io n t o c on tro l the cro ss -ex am in at io n o f wit ne ss es ”). Sec on d, i t was withi n t he di st ric t co urt’s d is cret io n t o e xc lu de th e p ol y gr ap h e vi de nc e as un rel iabl e u nd er Fe d.R .Evi d. 7 02 an d u ndul y pre jud ic ia l u nd er Fe d.R .Evi d. 4 03 , pa rti cu la rly whenno expe rt wi tn es s was pre se ntto ex pl ai n t he m ean in g o f an d co nt ex t o f th e res ul ts . See Un it edSta te s v . Gil li ard , 13 3 F .3d80 9, 8 12 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (co nc lu di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re fu si ng to adm itpo lygrap h e vi de nc e th atitde te rm in edwas i na dm is si bl e u nd er Ru le s 4 03 an d 7 02 ). AFFIR MED. Although the district court did not expressly rely on this rea son in its ruling , we may aff irm “for 2 any rea son supported by the rec ord.” See United States v. Al-Aria n, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008). 5