FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 7, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 14023 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 0 0 6 - CR- O C- 1 0 - G RJ 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 J A M E S W I L L A R D P R E S C O T T , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 7, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J a m e s W i l l a r d P r e s c ottappe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f ortw o c ount s of

s e l l i ng a fi rearm t o a fel o n , i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § § 9 2 2 (d )(1 ) an d 9 2 4 (a)(2 ). B ecau se the evi dence pres ent ed attri al w as suff i ci entfor aj ury t o fi nd thatP re sc ot tkn ew o rh a d r e a s o n a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e th a th e s o l d f i r e a r m s t o a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n , we A F F I R M hi s c onvi c t i on. I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e de r a l gr a nd j ury i ndi c t e d P r e s c otton tw o c ount s of s e l l i ng a f

i r e a r m t o a f e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 922( d) ( 1) a nd 924( a ) ( 2) . T he i ndi c tm e nt a lle g e d th a t P r e s c o tt “w illf u lly a n d k n o w in g ly s o ld a n d d is p o s e d o f a f ir e a r m . . . to a per son w ho had b ee n con vi ct ed of a cr i m e pun i shabl e by i m pri sonm entfor at erm e xc e e di ng one y e a r , know i ng a nd ha vi ng r e a s ona bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe p u r c h a s e ro f

s a i d f i r e a r m w a s a p e r s o n w h o h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i me puni s ha bl e by i m pr i s onm e ntf ora t e r m e xc e e di ng one y e a r . ” R 1- 1 a t1, 2. A t tr ia l, M ic h a e l C le a ry te s tif ie d th a t h e h a d a s s is te d th e B u r e a u o f A lc o h o l, T o b ac co , an d F irea rm s ( “A T F ”) w ith it s in v es ti g atio n o f P re sc o ttat R en n in g er ’s F l e a M a r ke ti n M ountD or a , L a ke C ounty , F l or i da i n the s pr i ng of 2003. R 2 a t73, 89. C l e a ry ha d a gr e e d t o a s s i s tthe A T F w i th unde r c ove ri nve s t i ga t i ons be c a us e of a f eder al conv i ct i on for f

el on y posse ss i on of a f

i re arm . S ee i d. at70 -71. C l ea ry al so had a previ ou s C on nect i cutst at e c on vi ct i on for r ob bery . C l ea ry w as ou t fi tt ed3

w i th a r e c or di ng de vi c e a nd i ns truc t e d t o a tt e m ptt o pur c ha s e a f i r e a r m f r om P re sc ot taf

t erst at i ng thathe w as a c on vi ct ed fe l on . S ee i d. at74 . C l ea ry pur c ha s e d tw o ha ndguns f r om P r e s c otta tthe f

l e a m a r ke tw i th m one y s uppl i e d by the A T F : (1) aM anurhi n 9 -m i l l i m et er , m od el P 1 sem i -aut om at i c pi st ol ; and (2) a T aurus . 45 ca l i ber M i l l enni um se m i -aut om at i c pi st ol . B oth tra nsac t i on s w er e a u d io tap e d a n d tr a n s c r ib e d , a n d th e tr a n s c r ip ts w e r e a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e . A c c or di ng t o the tr a ns c r i ptf r om the f i r s ttr a ns a c t i on, C l e a ry i nqui r e d: C l e a ry : S o l i ke the r e i s no ba c kgr ound c he c k ornothi ng l i ke tha t , I got a f el on y f rom 15 ye ar s a go fr om ou tof st at e. P r e s c ott : W e l l , i f

y ou go t o a de a l e rhe r e i n the s t a t e the y ha ve the backgrou nd chec k C l ea ry : W e a re no tdo i ng thatt od ay P r e s c o tt : No C l eary: C ash an d carry? P re sc ot t : T hey f

i l l ou ta r egi stra t i on form and al l that , as fa r a s r e g is tr a tio n in th e s ta te o f F lo r id a , w e d o n ’t r e a lly h a v e th a t. C l ea ry : Y ea h, m y w i fe usual l y buys them for m e. I a m l i ke here hone y go pi c k tha tone up. S he pi c ks the m up. E xh. F ol de r1, e xh. 8 a tunnum be r e d 2. C l e a ry t e s t i f i e d tha thi s s t a t e m e nttha the had a pri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on di d n ot“ se em t o p hase ” P re sc ot t . R 2 at78 . C l ea ry further t es t i fi ed thatP re sc ot tw as re spon si ve and n everi nd i ca t ed thathe had tr oubl e he a r i ng hi m dur i ng the i rc onve r s a t i on. I d. a t86- 87. A cc ordi ng t o the tra nscr i ptfr om the se cond tra nsac t i on se vera l w ee ks l at er , C l e a ry i nqui r e d:4

C l ea ry : S am e dea l as l as tt i m e no p aperw ork n on e of thatstuff. P r e s c o tt : No

. . . C le a ry : I g u e s s I w ill g o a h e a d a n d ta k e th a t. P r e s c ott : O ka y , a nd a box of s he l l s , a nd

. . . A ge ntP e r a l a : Y ourw i f e ha s be e n ge tt i ng y ou [ a m m uni t i on] of f the I n te rn e t, r ig h t? C lear y: Y ea h , o h ye ah m y w ife h as b ee n b u yin g it , o ff ca u se I c an ’t b u y th e b u l l et s, b u tsh e ah , sh e j u stsen d s h er l i cen se i n an d th ey j u st m ai l th em ri g h tt o th e h o u se P re sc ot t : L etm e getyou a bag for thatstuff. C le a ry : Y o u d o n ’t n e e d to s e e m y lic e n s e , n o p ap e rw o r k lik e y o u s a id l as tt i m e. I gotthatfe l on y thi ng fr om ei gh t ee n years ago o r w hat ever , thatw as fr om a di ff

er entst at e. P re sc ot t : I s ee n you r l i ce nse ( un i nt el l i gi bl e) C le a ry : W h a t’s th a t? P r e s c o tt: I s a id I s e e n y o u rlic e n s e , I d o n ’t r e a lly n e e d th a t. E xh. F ol de r1, e xh. 9 a t6- 7. C l e a ry a ga i n t e s t i f i e d tha thi s s t a t e m e nttha the ha d a pr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on “ di dn’ ts e e m t o pha s e [ P r e s c ott ] . ” R 2 a t94. O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, C l e a ry not e d tha t , a tthe t i m e of the tr a ns a c t i ons , the f l e a ma r k e tw a s f

a i r l y c r o w d e d a n d th e r e w e r e o th e rp e o p l e l o o k i n g a tth e f i r e a r ms in P r e s c o tt’s b o o th . I d . a t 1 0 0 - 0 1 . H e te s tif ie d th a t a t n o tim e d u r in g th e ir conv er sa t i on di d P re sc ot ti nd i ca t e thathe coul d n othearC l ea ry . Id. at10 1. C l ea ry c o n c e d e d th a t, a t th e tim e h e m a d e h is p u r c h a s e s , it w a s p o s s ib le th a t P r e s c o tt coul d h ave been ca rryi ng on m ul t i pl e c on vers at i on s w i th o ther c ust om er s. Id. at 105. N e ve r the l e s s , he a s s e r t e d tha the ha d s a i d tha the w a s a c onvi c t e d f e l on “ l oud5

enou gh w here [P re sc ot t ] coul d h ea r [ hi m ] . ” I d. at10 7. H e a l so no t ed, ho w ever , th atP resco ttd i d n o tsp eci fi cal l y ack n o w l ed g e th ath e h eard h i m st at e th ath e w as a conv i ct ed fe l on . Id. at10 8. C l ea ry t es t i fi ed thathe coul d n otbe ce rt ai n that P re sc ot thear d h i m sa y thathe w as a c on vi ct ed fe l on , bu the “ di d the best[he] c oul d” t o m a ke s ur e tha tP r e s c ottw oul d he a rhi m . I d. a t116. A T F A gentS cottP er al a, w ho had al so been pres entdu ri ng bo th exchang es be tw e e n C l e a ry a nd P r e s c ott , c orr obor a t e d C l e a ry ’ s t e s t i m ony . S e e R 3 a t128- 35, 1 4 0 - 4 2 . H e n o te d th a t P r e s c o tt’s a n s w e r s to C le a ry ’s q u e s tio n s w e r e “r e s p o n s iv e ,” an d th atP resco tt“ w as v ery m att er o f fact , v ery j u stessen t i al l y w asn ’ tp h ased b y” C l e a ry ’ s s t a t e m e n tth a th e h a d a p r i o rf e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n . I d . a t1 3 2 - 3 3 , 1 3 4 . On c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, A ge ntP e r a l a t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d be e n i nvol ve d w i th the p r e p a r a tio n o f

th e tr a n s c r ip ts o f

th e a u d io tap e s r e c o r d in g th e u n d e r c o v e rv is its to the f l e a m a r ke t . I d. a t146. H e c onc e de d tha tC l e a ry ne ve rus e d the e xa c tw or ds

“ co n v i ct ed fel o n ” i n h i s co n v ersat i o n s w i th P resco tt . Id . at1 4 7 . H e al so ac kn ow l edged t hatP re sc ot tdi d n otprec i se l y verbal l y a ckno w l edge thathe w as aw ar e thatC l ea ry w as a c on vi ct ed fe l on . Id. at15 0. A gentP er al a f urther t es t i fi ed th at P re sc o ttg av e a n im m ed iate re sp o n se , w ith o u t h es it atio n , fo ll o w in g C lear y’s s t a t e m e nt s tha the ha d a pr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on. I d. a t157.6

A tthe c l os e of

the gove rnm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e , P r e s c ottm ove d f ora j udgm e ntof ac qu i tt al un der F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 29 . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on. P r e s c ottthe n t e s t i f i e d i n hi s ow n de f

e ns e . H e f

i r s te xpl a i ne d tha the wa s r e t i r e d a n d th a th e r e g u l a r l y s o l d g u n s a tth e f l e a m a r k e t . I d . a t1 8 1 - 8 2 . He as se rt ed thathe had p robl em s w i th h i gh fr equency hear i ng l oss, and st at ed that

“ a ny t i m e I ge ti n a noi s y a r e a , I c a n’ the a rnothi ng. ” I d. a t183. H e de s c r i be d the f l e a m a r ke ta s ha vi ng “ m ode rn ora ve r a ge noi s e . . . c r ow d noi s e . . . buti t ’ s not e xtr e m e l y noi s y . ” I d. P r e s c ottt e s t i f i e d tha ta f

t e rr e vi e w i ng the a udi ot ape a nd the vi de ot ape , he r e c a l l e d m e e t i ng C l e a ry , buttha the “ ne ve rhe a r d tha t[ C l e a ry ha d a fe l on y f rom ou tof st at e] atany t i m e. ” I d. at18 6. H e di d n otre ca l l w hether he had any di ff i cul ty hea ri ng or un ders t andi ng C l ea ry du ri ng thei r c on vers at i on . Id. at 1 8 7 . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, P r e s c ottt e s t i f i e d tha the ha s di f

f i c ul ty he a r i ng a c o n v e r s a tio n “in a c r o w d e d r o o m if e v e ry b o d y [ is ] ta lk in g .” I d . a t 1 8 9 . P r e s c o tt e xpl a i ne d tha t , dur i ng the f i r s te xc ha nge , i tw a s pos s i bl e tha the ha d onl y he a r d the f ir s t p a r t o f

C le a ry ’s q u e s tio n r e g a r d in g a b a c k g r o u n d c h e c k , b u t n o t th e p a r t in w h ic h C le a ry in d ic a te d h e h a d a p r io rf e lo n y c o n v ic tio n . I d . a t 1 9 2 . P r e s c o tt as se rt ed thathe w as no taw ar e thatC l ea ry had t ol d h i m thathe w as a c on vi ct ed f e lo n , p o in tin g o u t th a t “[ h ]e n e v e rd id s a y h e w a s a c o n v ic te d f e lo n .” I d . a t 1 9 3 .Prescott’s trial c ounsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw as counsel pursua nt to Anders 1 v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We denied c ounsel’s motion without prejudice in the ground that his brief f ailed to meet the Anders requirements and that the record on appeal was inc omp le te . Wefu

rt her o rde re d c ounselto p ro videa trans c ript o f t

hevo ir direproc e e ding s to complete the record, and either to renew his Anders motion or file a merits brief. Counsel later filed a merits brief and w ithdrew his Ander s motion. 7 P r e s c o tt a d m itte d th a t, d u r in g th e s e c o n d e x c h a n g e , w h e n C le a ry a s k e d if P r e s c o tt n e e d e d to s e e h is lic e n s e b e c a u s e o f th e “f e lo n y th in g f

r o m 1 8 y e a r s a g o ,” P r e s c o tt h a d r e s p o n d e d th a t h e h a d a lr e a d y s e e n C le a ry ’s lic e n s e . I d . a t 1 9 4 . P r e s c o tt further t es t i fi ed thathe heard C l ea ry as k abo uthi s l i ce nse, bu tthathe di d n othear hi m sa y thathe had a “ fe l on y thi ng fr om 18 ye ar s a go . ” I d. P re sc ot tadm i tt ed that h e w a s a w a r e th a t a c o n v ic te d f e lo n c o u ld n o t p o s s e s s a h a n d g u n . I d . P re sc ot tre new ed hi s m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al , and t he di stri ctcourt deni ed i t . T he j ury f

ou nd P re sc ot tgu i l ty of bot h cou nt s. T he di stri ctcourt s e n te n c e d P r e s c o tt to f

if te e n m o n th s in p r is o n a n d tw o y e a r s s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . P r e s c ottf

i l e d a t i m e l y not i c e of

appe a l . O n appe a l , P r e s c otta r gue s tha tthe

1 gove rnm e ntf

a i l e d t o i ntr oduc e s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t o s how tha the ha d know l e dge of the confi dent i al i nform ant ’ s f el on y s t atus, and t hu s, fa i l ed t o p rovi de evi dence s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n hi s c onvi c t i on. S pe c i f i c a l l y , P r e s c otta ve r s tha the di d not e xhi bi ta ny s i gns tha the he a r d the i nf or m a nt ’ s s t a t e m e nt s a bouthi s f e l ony s t a tus a nd tha tthe gove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o r e buthi s c l a i m tha the s uf f e r s f r om hi gh freq u en cy h eari n g l o ss.8 I I . DI S CUS S I ON

“ W e r e vi e w de novo w he the rthe r e i s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s uppor tthe j ury’ s ver di ct . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. O rt i z, 31 8 F . 3d 10 30 , 10 36 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ) ( per c u r ia m ) . W e w ill a f

f ir m th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t “if a r e a s o n a b le tr ie ro f

f a c t c o u ld c onc l ude tha tthe e vi de nc e e s t a bl i s he s gui l tbe y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n s o de t e r m i ni ng the s uf f i c i e nc y of

e vi de nc e , “ [ w ] e vi e w the e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, w ith a ll r e a s o n a b le i nf e r e nc e s a nd c r e di bi l i ty c hoi c e s m a de i n the gove rnm e nt ’ s f a vor . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). F e de r a l l a w pr ovi de s tha t“ [ i ] ts ha l l be unl a w f ul f ora ny pe r s on t o s e l l or othe rw i s e di s pos e of

a ny f i r e a r m ora m m uni t i on t o a ny pe r s on know i ng orha vi ng re as on abl e c ause t o b el i eve thatsuch pers on . . . i s und eri nd i ctm entfor, or has been conv i ct ed i n any courtof, a c ri m e pun i shabl e by i m pri sonm entfor at erm e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) . T o e s tab lis h a v io la tio n u n d e rth is s e c t i on, the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove “ be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt( 1) tha t[ the de f e nda nt ] s ol d a f

i r e a r m ; ( 2) tha tthe pur c ha s e r. . . w a s a c onvi c t e d f e l on; a nd ( 3) that[the defendant ] kn ew or had reas on abl e c ause t o b el i eve that[the pu rc hase r] ha d a pr i orf

e l ony c onvi c t i on. ” S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e t e r s , 403 F . 3d 1263, 1268 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). “ [T ] o h av e reaso n ab l e cau se t o b el i ev e th atso m eo n e i s a9

c onvi c t e d f

e l on m e a ns t o ha ve know l e dge of f a c t s w hi c h, a l though nota m ount i ng t o d i rectk n o w l ed g e, w o u l d cau se a reaso n ab l e p erso n , k n o w i n g th e sam e th i n g s, r e a s ona bl y t o c onc l ude tha tthe othe rpe r s on w a s a c onvi c t e d f e l on. ” I d. a t1269. W h en a d efen d an tch o o ses t o t est i fy, w e h av e h el d th at“ a st at em en tb y a de f e nda nt , i f

di s be l i e ve d by the j ur y , m a y be c ons i de r e d a s s ubs t a nt i ve e vi de nc e of th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt. . . . T o b e m o r e s p e c if ic . . . w h e n a d e f

e n d a n t c h o o s e s to t e s t i f y , he runs the r i s k tha ti f di s be l i e ve d the j ur y m i ghtc onc l ude the oppos i t e of hi s t e s t i m ony i s true . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow n, 53 F . 3d 312, 314 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . In th i s case, th e reco rd est ab l i sh es th atP resco ttso l d tw o h an d g u n s t o C l eary, a c on vi ct ed fe l on . T he hand gu ns w er e s ol d i n separ at e tra nsac t i on s, bo th o f w hi ch w e r e r e c or de d on vi de o a nd a udi o t ape . T he tr a ns c r i pt s f r om the r e c or di ngs i nd i ca t e thatdu ri ng ea ch tra nsac t i on , C l ea ry st at ed thathe had b ee n con vi ct ed of a f e lo n y in a n o th e rs ta te a n d h e e x p r e s s e d c o n c e rn r e g a r d in g a b a c k g r o u n d c h e c k . T he re cordi ng s s ho w thatP re sc ot tw as re spon si ve t o C l ea ry ’ s quest i on s. F urther, P re sc o ttd id n o t i n d icate th at h e h ad d ifficu lty h ea rin g o r u n d er stan d in g C lear y’s st at em entre gardi ng hi s pri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on . T hese fa ct s s up po rta f i nd i ng that P r e s c ottkne w orha d r e a s ona bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tC l e a ry w a s a c onvi c t e d f e l on.10

A l though P r e s c ottde ni e d ha vi ng he a r d C l e a ry ’ s s t a t e m e ntdue t o hi gh f r e que nc y he a r i ng l os s , he di d notpr ovi de a ny e vi de nc e t o e s t a bl i s h tha the s u f f e r e d f r o m s u c h a h e a r in g lo s s . F u r th e r , a lth o u g h P r e s c o tt te s tif ie d th a t h e d id h e a rth e r e le v a n t p o r tio n o f C le a ry ’s s ta te m e n ts , a ju ry is e n title d to d is b e lie v e h im . S ee B ro w n , 5 3 F . 3 d at3 1 4 . A cco rd i n g l y, v i ew i n g th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, w e c o n c lu d e th a t “a r e a s o n a b le tr ie ro f f a c t c o u ld concl ud e thatthe evi dence es t abl i shes gu i l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” O rt i z, 3 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 6 . I I I . CONCL US I ON P r e s c o tt ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o rtw o c o u n ts o f

s e llin g a f

ir e a r m to a f

e lo n . B e c a us e w e c onc l ude tha tthe e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l c oul d ha ve l e d a re as on abl e tri erof fa ctt o con cl ud e, beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt , thatP re sc ot tkn ew orha d r e a s ona bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha the w a s s e l l i ng f i r e a r m s t o a c onvi c t e d f e l on, h i s co n v i ct i o n i s AF F I RME D.