FI L ED

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T

DECEMBER 8, 2009

THOMAS K. KAH

N

CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 8

- 1 6 8 2 5

N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 8

- 2 0 3 9 4

- C R

- P A S

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

,

v e r s u s

A L B E R T O D U N C A N

,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( D e c e m b e r 8

, 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e E D M O N D S O N

, C A R N E S a n d K R A V I T C H

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.P E R C U R I A M :

A l b e r t o D u n c a n a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r d r u g a n d f

i r e a r m o f f e n s e s

, i n

v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U

. S

. C

. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 )

. N o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r

h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i r m

.

O n a p p e a l

, D u n c a n c h a l l e n g e s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n t o

s u p p r e s s t h e d r u g s a n d g u n d i s c o v e r e d i n a s e a r c h o f h i s h o m e

. D u n c a n m a i n t a i n s

t h a t h i s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h w a s n o t v o l u n t a r y a n d t h a t i t w a s e r r o r f o r t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t t o a d o p t t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e ’ s f i n d i n g o n t h i s p o i n t

. I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e 1

d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s

, w e r e v i e w f a c t d e t e r m i n a t i o n s f

o r

c l e a r e r r o r a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w t o t h e f a c t s d e n o v o

. U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. B o y c e

,

3 5 1 F

. 3 d 1 1 0 2

, 1 1 0 5 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 3 )

. A n d w e c o n s t r u e a l l f a c t s i n t h e l i g h t m o s t

f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y

- - h e r e

, t h e g o v e r n m e n t

. I d

.

P o l i c e o f f i c e r s

, p o s s e s s i n g n e i t h e r r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n n o r p r o b a b l e c a u s e

,

m a y s t i l l s e a r c h a p e r s o n w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t a s l o n g a s t h e y f i r s t o b t a i n t h e

v o l u n t a r y c o n s e n t o f t h e p e r s o n i n q u e s t i o n

. U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. B l a k e

, 8 8 8 F

. 2 d 7 9 5

,

Dunca n also arg ues that the district cour t incorre ctly

applied a c lear ly

err oneous, instead 1

of de novo, standa

rd of r eview w hen re viewing the mag istrate’s r eport. B ut the court stated tha t

it had revie wed the r eport, the tra nscript of the suppr ession hear ing, a nd Dunca n’s objections:

hallmarks of de novo revie w. See United States v. F aria s-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1

(11th Cir. 2009) (a

revie w of a

mag istrate’s r eport to which a specific objection has be en made

require s de novo re view of the rec ord, instead of a de novo e x amination of the witnesse s)

27 9 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 9 )

. W h e t h e r c o n s e n t i s v o l u n t a r y i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t t o b e

d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; a n d t h e g o v e r n m e n t b e a r s t h e

b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g b o t h ( 1 ) t h e e x i s t e n c e o f c o n s e n t a n d ( 2 ) t h a t t h e c o n s e n t w a s

v o l u n t a r y a n d n o t a n a c q u i e s c e n c e t o a c l a i m o f l a w f u l a u t h o r i t y

. I d

.

H e r e

, t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t p o l i c e o f f i c e r s k n o c k e d o n D u n c a n ’ s d o o r

,

i n f o r m e d h i m t h a t t h e y h a d r e c e i v e d a c o m p l a i n t t h a t h e w a s s e l l i n g d r u g s o u t o f

h i s h o m e

, a n d a s k e d h i m i f t h e y c o u l d s e a r c h h i s h o m e

. D u n c a n d e n i e d s e l l i n g

d r u g s

, b u t t o l d o f

f i c e r s t h e y c o u l d s e a r c h h i s h o m e

. A n o f f i c e r t h e n g a v e D u n c a n a

c o n s e n t

- t o

- s e a r c h f

o r m a n d e x p l a i n e d i t t o h i m

, i n c l u d i n g t h a t h e c o u l d r e f u s e t o

a l l o w o f f i c e r s t o s e a r c h ; D u n c a n s i g n e d t h e f o r m

. N o o f

f i c e r t h r e a t e n e d D u n c a n 2

a n d D u n c a n n e v e r a s k e d t h e p o l i c e t o l e a v e

. B a s e d o n t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e s e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d c o n s t r u i n g t h e f a c t s i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f

a v o r a b l e t o t h e

g o v e r n m e n t

, w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t D u n c a n ’ s c o n s e n t w a s i n v o l u n t a r y

. 3

We discern no plain e rror in Duncan’ s arg ument (ra ised for the first time on appea l) that 2

the conse nt-to-sea

rch f orm was invalid on its fac e bec ause it did not state clea rly that a sea rch

war rant supporte d by

probable cause was re quired to sea rch his home a

nd beca use the for

m did

not describe adequa

tely the prope rty

to be sea rche d.

Dunca n arg ues that the district cour t erre d in adopting the mag istrate’s c redibility 3

deter minations because the cour t relied on impermissible fa ctors in discre diting his testimony

, including D uncan’ s self-inter est and use of a tra nslator at the suppre ssion hearing . Even if the

district court re lied on impermissible factor s, any err or wa s harmless. United States v.

Alexander, 835 F .2d 1406, 1411 (11th Cir. 1988) (a pply ing ha

rmless err or re view in the conte x t

of the de nial of a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s )

. I nterna l inconsistencies existed in Duncan’s

testimony and nothing compelled a reje ction of the mag istrate’s c redibility deter mination, given

that Dunca

n’s testimony

corr oborate d the offic er’ s testimony in material re spects. See U nited

States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002) (we acc ept a c redibility

3A s o f f i c e r s s e a r c h e d D u n c a n ’ s h o m e

, a d r u g

- s n i f f i n g d o g a l e r t e d t o a n a r e a

o f t h e k i t c h e n c a b i n e t u n d e r t h e s i n k

. O n t h e c o u n t e r t o p

, o f f i c e r s f o u n d a s c a l e

,

s e v e r a l s m a l l p l a s t i c b a g s

, a n d a c u t t i n g a g e n t

. I n t h e c a b i n e t

, o f f i c e r s f o u n d a n

a e r o s o l c a n w e d g e d b e t w e e n t h e s i n k ’ s p i p e s

. O f f i c e r s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c a n h a d

a f a l s e b o t t o m ; u p o n o p e n i n g t h e f a l s e b o t t o m

, o f

f i c e r s d i s c o v e r e d f

o u r o u n c e s o f

c o c a i n e i n i t

.

D u n c a n a r g u e s t h a t e v e n i f h e d i d c o n s e n t v o l u n t a r i l y

, p o l i c e o f f i c e r s ’ u s e o f

t h e d r u g

- s n i f

f i n g d o g a n d o p e n i n g o f t h e f a l s e

- b o t t o m e d c a n e x c e e d e d t h e s c o p e o f

h i s c o n s e n t

. W e d i s a g r e e

. O f f i c e r s t o l d D u n c a n t h e y w e r e b r i n g i n g i n a d o g

, a n d

D u n c a n m a d e n o o b

j e c t i o n

. A t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g

, D u n c a n p r o v i d e d n o

t e s t i m o n y t h a t c o n t r a d i c t e d t h e o f f i c e r ’ s t e s t i m o n y t h a t h e c o n s e n t e d t o t h e u s e o f

t h e d o g

. O f

f i c e r s a l s o m a d e c l e a r t h a t t h e y w e r e s e a r c h i n g D u n c a n ’ s h o m e b e c a u s e

o f a c o m p l a i n t t h a t h e w a s s e l l i n g d r u g s

, a n d D u n c a n c o n s e n t e d t o t h i s s e a r c h

.

T h u s

, o f f i c e r s w e r e a u t h o r i z e d t o s e a r c h c o n t a i n e r s t h a t m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y c o n t a i n

d r u g s

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. M a r t i n e z

, 9 4 9 F

. 2 d 1 1 1 7

, 1 1 2 0

- 2 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 2 )

( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t p e r m i s s i o n t o c o n d u c t a g e n e r a l s e a r c h f o r d r u g s i n c l u d e s

p e r m i s s i o n t o s e a r c h a n y c o m p a r t m e n t o r c o n t a i n e r t h e r e i n t h a t m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y

c o n t a i n d r u g s )

. A n d g i v e n t h e d o g ’ s a l e r t

, t h e c l o s e p r o x i m i t y o f t h e c a n t o d r u g

deter mination “unless it is contrary to the laws of na ture, or is so inconsistent or improbable on

its face that no rea sonable fa ctfinder could ac cept it”) (citation omitted).

4p a r a p h e r n a l i a

, a n d t h e h i d d e n n a t u r e o f t h e c a n

, i t w a s r e a s o n a b l e f o r o f f i c e r s t o

s u s p e c t t h a t t h e c a n c o n t a i n e d d r u g s

.

W e n o w a d d r e s s D u n c a n ’ s c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s

.

D u n c a n a r g u e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e a n i n s t r u c t i o n o n t h e

R e l i g i o u s F r e e d o m R e s t o r a t i o n A c t ( “ R F R A ” ) a s a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f

e n s e t o t h e

s e c t i o n 9 2 2 ( g ) c h a r g e

. W e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s r e f u s a l t o g i v e a j u r y 4

i n s t r u c t i o n f

o r a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

. U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. L e e

, 6 8 F

. 3 d 1 2 6 7

, 1 2 7 3

( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 5 )

.

T h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e R F R A a p p l i e s i s a “ p u r e q u e s t i o n o f l a w

, a n d i s

s u b j e c t t o d e n o v o r e v i e w

. ” L a w s o n v

. S i n g l e t a r y

, 8 5 F

. 3 d 5 0 2

, 5 1 1

- 1 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r

.

1 9 9 6 ) ( i n t h e c i v i l c o n t e x t )

. M o r e o v e r

, t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p u r e q u e s t i o n s o f l a w

i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s a r e n o t t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e j u r y

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. G a u l d i n

,

1 1 5 S

. C t

. 2 3 1 0

, 2 3 1 5 ( 1 9 9 5 )

. B e c a u s e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e R F R A w a s a q u e s t i o n o f

l a w

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a b u s e d n o d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c l i n i n g t o s u b m i t

t h e i s s u e t o t h e j u r y

. B e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d t h e r e q u e s t e d j u r y

i n s t r u c t i o n

, w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s D u n c a n ’ s a r g u m e n t s a b o u t t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e

R F R A

.

When office rs enter ed Dunc an’s house , they saw -- in plain view -- a

g un inside a kettle 4

that was pa

rt of a Sante ria shrine . Dunca n maintained that he w as a pr actitioner of the Afr ican

Yoruba relig ion and possessed the f irea rm for one of his shrines as pa rt of his relig ion. He

arg ues that sec tion 922(g ) substantially burdene d the exercise of his relig ion.

5D u n c a n a l s o c h a l l e n g e s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n o n t h e

l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e o f s i m p l e p o s s e s s i o n

. H e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e q u a n t i t y o f

d r u g s d i d n o t p r e c l u d e f i n d i n g t h a t t h e d r u g s w e r e f o r p e r s o n a l u s e

. B u t t h e

e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t D u n c a n p o s s e s s e d m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 g r a m s

o f c o c a i n e ( a n a m o u n t g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t n o r m a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p e r s o n a l u s e ) a n d

t h a t D u n c a n p o s s e s s e d d r u g p a r a p h e r n a l i a

. S e e L e e

, 6 8 F

. 3 d a t 1 2 7 3 ( n o a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g s i m p l e p o s s e s s i o n j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n w h e n d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e d

1 6 g r a m s o f c o c a i n e i n h i s p o c k e t a n d e v i d e n c e s h o w e d t h a t h e s o l d c o c a i n e t o

d i s t r i b u t o r s ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. P i r o l l i

, 7 4 3 F

. 2 d 8 6 2

, 8 6 3 n

. 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 4 ) ( n o

s i m p l e p o s s e s s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n w h e r e t h e a m o u n t o f c o c a i n e

- - o v e r o n e p o u n d

- -

w a s “ t o o g r e a t f

o r p e r s o n a l u s e ” )

. G i v e n t h e l a r g e q u a n t i t y o f d r u g s a n d t h e

a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e o f d r u g d i s t r i b u t i o n

, t h e c o u r t a b u s e d n o d i s c r e t i o n i n

c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s i m p l e p o s s e s s i o n a n d d e n y i n g

t h e l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f

f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n

.

A F F I R M E D

. 5

We rejec t Duncan’ s arg ument that section 922(g ) is unconstitutional because the ac t fails 5

to require proof of

a substantial nexus between the offe nse and inter state commer ce. See United

States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387, 390 ( 11th Cir. 1996) (conc luding that se ction 922(g ) wa s a

valid exercise of

Congr ess’s Commerce Clause power as long as the g overnme nt showed the

minimal nex us that the fire arm moved in intersta te commer ce)

.

6