2008 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 5-28-2008 

# U SA v . Adeye mi 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 . 07-1096

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_2008

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 2008 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 . Adeye mi " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1129. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1129H onor abl e J ane A
. R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, * s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT 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
N o. 07- 1096
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S A M S O N A D E Y E M I, A ppel l ant
APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C
. C r i m . N o. 06- cr - 00124- 1) D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is

A r gued: M ay8, 2008
B efor e: B A R R Y , ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay28, 2008)

M ark S. G r eenbe r g, E s q. ( A r gued) L aC h ee n , D ixo n , W ittl es & G ree n b erg 1429 W al nutSt r eet , 13 Fl oor th Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant2

A r l ene D . Fi s h, E s q. ( A r gued) R o b e rt A . Z a u z m e r, E s q . O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney Sui t e 1250 615 C hes t nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A p p ell an t Sa m so n A d ey em i w as c o n v ict ed o f o n e c o u n t of co n sp ir ac yto interfe re
w i t h i nt er s t at e comm er ce byr obbery , tw o count s of i nt er fer ence w i t h i nt er s t at e comm er ce b yro b b e ry, a n d tw o c o u n ts o f u s in g a n d c a rr y in g a f

ir e a rm d u ri n g a c ri m e o f v io le n c e . O n a p p e a l, he c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to su p p re ss h is
s t at ementt o l aw enfor cementand the C our t ’ s j uryi ns t ruct i on conce r ni ng the def i ni t i on of

“ f ir e a rm .” F o r t h e f

o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m . I. T h e f a c ts o f th e ro b b e rie s w h ich o c c u rre d o n Ja n u a ry3 , 2 0 0 6 a re n o t in d isp u te
an d , g iven that w e w ri te so lel yfo r th e p arti es, th o se f ac ts ne ed n o t be re v isi ted h ere
e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry f

o r o u r r e v ie w o f

th e d e n ia l o f

A d e y e m i’ s m o tio n to s u p p re s s . Suffi ce i tt o s ayt haton J anuary9, 2006, A dey emi had j us tbeen i m pl i cat ed byB r i an W yn d e r, o n e o f

th e p a rticip a n ts in th e tw o ro b b e rie s a t issu e h e re , w h e n , q u ite3

coi nci dent al l y , he and hi s fatherarr i ved atthe pol i ce s t at i on atabout11: 20 p. m . t o pi ck up t he fa t her ’ s car , w hi ch had be en i dent i fi ed as havi ng been us ed i n one of the r obber i es and s ei zed thr ee da y s ear l i er . D et ect i ves J ames Crone and Fr ank M ul l en had be en ques t i oni ng W ynderand anotherpar t i ci pant , R y an H obdy , and D et ect i ve C r one
r ecogni zed A dey emi fr om a phot ogr aph. A dey emi w as t aken t o a r oom and t ol d by D et ect i ve C r one thathe and D et ect i ve M ul l en w ant ed t o s peak w i t h hi m aboutthe ca rand t he tw o r obber i es , butt hatt heyhad t o l eave the s t at i on and w oul d i nt ervi ew hi m w hen t h e yr e tu r n e d
. Al t h o u g h t h e d o o rwa s l o c k e d wh i l e th e d e t e c t i v e s we r e a wa y , Ad e y e mi
w a s n o t h a n d c u f

f e d
. W hen the det ect i ves r etur ned, atabout4: 00 a. m . , aft ert aki ng W ynderand H obdy back t o pr i s on, t heyexpl ai ned t o A dey emi thathe w as bei ng hel d beca us e he ha d been i m pli cat ed in the tw o robb eri es. T heyoral l yadv i sed him of h i s Mi r anda r i ght s , w hi ch A d e y e m i sta ted h e u n d e rsto o d a n d o ra llyw a iv e d . T h e d e tec tiv e s th e n a sk e d A d e y e m i a
s er i es of ques t i ons aboutt he M cD onal d’ s r obbery . I n r es pons e, A dey emi gave a ver s i on of the eve nt s t hatni ghti n w hi ch he s ai d t hathe w as ther e i n hi s carbutthathe di d not t ake pa r ti n anycr i m i nal act i vi t y . T he det ect i ves s t opped A dey emi , gave hi m the
s t at ementt hatW ynderhad gi ven i m pl i cat i ng hi m i n t he r obbery , and s how ed hi m the
s u r v e i l l a n c e v i d e o o f

h i s v e h i c l e i n th e M c Do n a l d ’ s d r i v e - t h ru . Atth a tp o i n t , Ad e y e mi
a d m itte d h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e tw o ro b b e ri e s a n d e x p la in e d w h a t h a d in f a c t o c c u rr e d
. A dey em i w as agai n g i ven his Mi r anda ri g h ts a n d s ig n e d a w ri tte n w a iv e r o f th o s e ri g h ts .4

D etec ti v e C ron e the n too k a f o rm al st atem en t from h im , an d typ ed ito u t on a c o m p u ter,
n o tin g th a t it w a s g iv e n a t 4 :3 0 a .m ., a b o u t 3 0 m in u te s a f te r q u e s tio n in g h a d b e g u n . De t e c t i v e Cr o n e p r i n t e d o u tt h e s t a t e me n tf o rAd e y e mi t o r e v i e w i n p r i n t . Ad e y e mi d e c lin e d to m a k e a n yc h a n g e s a n d s ig n e d it. A s t o t he s econd i s s ue r ai s ed byA dey emi on appea l , attr i al he pr opos ed the fol l ow i ng j ur yi ns t ruct i on on t he def i ni t i on of “f

i r earm ”: T he t erm “fi r earm ” means ( A ) anyw eapon ( i ncl udi ng a s t art ergun) w h ich w ill o r is d e sig n e d to o r m a yre a d ilyb e c o n v e rte d to e x p e l a pr oj ect i l e byt he ac t i on of an e xpl os i ve; ( B ) the fr ame orr ece i verof any s uch w eapon; ( C ) anyfi r earm m uffl erorfi r earm s i l ence r ; or( D ) any d e s tru c tiv e d e v ic e . . . . T h e g o v e rn m e n t is n o t re q u ire d to p ro v e th a t th e w e a p o n is o p e ra b le oractual l ycapa bl e of f

i r i ng fori tt o be a “ fi r earm . ” R ather , the governm ent n e e d e sta b lish o n lyth a t th e w e a p o n “ is d e sig n e d to ” o r c a n b e “ re a d ily convert ed” t o expel a pr oj ect i l e bythe ac t i on of an e xpl os i ve. T h e n a tu re a n d e x ten t o f a w e a p o n ’s in o p e ra b ili tym a yb e re lev a n t in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r it w ill o r is d e sig n e d to o r m a yre a d ilyb e c o n v e rte d to expel a pr oj ect i l e byt he ac t i on of an e xpl os i ve. I f the w eapon, i n i t s curr ent c o n d iti o n , is n o t d e sig n e d to o r c a n n o t re a d ilyb e c o n v e rte d to e x p e l a p roje c tile b yth e a c tio n o f a n e x p lo s iv e , it is n o t a “ f ir e a rm .” S im p lyb e c a u se a w e a p o n w a s a “ f ire a rm ” w h e n o rig in a lly m anufa ctur ed does notnece s s ar i l ym ean thati ti s a “f i r earm ” i n i t s pr es ent condi t i on. (J. A
. 6 2 7 . )5

T h e D istric t C o u rt c h a rg e d th e ju rya s f o llo w s: [A ] fi r earm i s defi ned as anyw eapon w hi ch w i l l ori s des i gned t o or , m ay r eadi l ybe conve r t ed t o expel a pr oj ect i l e bythe ac t i on of an e xpl os i ve. A ny w e a p o n w h ich w ill o r is d e sig n e d to o r, m a yre a d ilyb e c o n v e rte d to e x p e l a p roje c tile b yth e a c tio n o f a n e x p lo s iv e . So t hi s char ge r equi r es thata r eal gun be us ed and c arr i ed and the t e r m i n c l u d e s a h a n d g u n , r e v o l v e r , a r i f l e o ra s h o t g u n , a s we l l a s th e f r a me ort he r ece i verof s uch a w eapon, and the G overnm ent , underthe l aw , i s not r equi r ed t o pr ove thatt he fi r earm w as oper abl e oractual l ycapa bl e of di s char gi ng a bul l etatt he mom entthati tw as ut i l i zed. R ather , the G overnm enti s r equi r ed ata mi ni m um t o es t abl i s h t hatthe gun w as des i gned t o fi r e pr oj ect i l es orthati tcoul d r eadi l ybe conve r t ed t o fi r e. (J. A
. 6 0 5 -06
. ) II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. “W e r evi ew the dis t ri ctcou rt ’s den i al of [ a] m oti on t o supp res s for cl ear err or as t o the und erl y i ng fact s, butexer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew as t o i t s l egal i t yi n l i ghtof the court ’ s pr oper l yfound fa ct s . ” U n itedS ta tes v . L a

ffer ty , 503 F. 3d 293, 298 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and cit ati o n o m itted; b rac k ets i n o ri g inal). W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er w h ethe r th e jury i ns t ruct i on s t at ed the pr operl egal s t andar d( s )
. W her e a de fenda ntt i m el yobj ect s t o t he
w o rd in g o f

a p a rt ic u la r i n s tru c tio n , w e re v ie w th e w o rd in g u s e d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . I n s o doi ng, w e l ook att he t ot al i t yof the i ns t ruct i ons and notanypart i cul arw or di ng or p h ra s in g in is o la tio n . U ni t ed Stat es v. Ji m enez , 5 1 3 F .3 d 6 2 , 7 4 -7 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). Wh e r e a d e f

e n d a n tf a i l s t o o b j e c tt i me l yt o th e u s e o f a j u r yi n s t ru c t i o n , h o we v e r , we
re v ie w f o r p la in e rr o r. Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 6 4 F .3 d 4 4 3 , 4 4 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A6

“ p la in e rr o r” is a n e rr o r t h a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U n itedS ta tes v . W

o lfe , 245 F. 3d 257, 260- 62 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 (1 9 9 3 ))
. III . A d ey em i argu es th at his statem en t w as in v o lun taryu n d er Missouriv. Seibert , 542 U .S . 6 0 0 (2 0 0 4 ), b e c a u se it w a s o n lya f ter h e g a v e th a t sta tem e n t th a t h e w a iv e d h is Mi r anda r i ght s i n w r i t i ng. T he di s t i nct i on he gl os s es over , how ever , i s the fa ctthathe
w as gi ven (and w ai ved ) hi s Mi r anda ri g h ts orall yat th e o u tseto f h is qu esti o n ing
. In Seibert , t he C our tfound thatt he def endant ’ s admi s s i on w as i nvol unt aryw her e i thad bee n obt ai ned af

t ert he i nt err ogat i ng offi cerdel i ber at el yques t i oned heratl ength w i t hout h a v i n g g i v e n h e ra n y Mi r anda w a rn in g s . I d. at616- 17. O nl yaft ers he made an incu lpato rystat em en t did the o ff icers ad v ise th e d ef

en d an t of

h er Mi r anda rig h ts, o b tain h e r w ri tte n w a iv e r, a n d th e n p ro d h e r t o re s ta te th e a d m is s io n o n ta p e . I d. at605. H er e, A dey em i w as oral l yadv i sed of his Mi r anda r i ght s pr i ort o anyques t i oni ng. T he fa ctt hat Mi r anda r i ght s w er e l at eral s o gi ven i n w r i t i ng does notnegat e the ef fi cac yof the i ni t i al
o ra l a d v ic e . A dey emi al s o ar gues t hatbeca us e he w as y oung, w as new t o t he cr i m i nal j us t i ce sy ste m , an d w a s q u e stio n e d in th e m id d le o f th e n ig h t, his sta tem e n t w a s e f f e c tiv e ly
coer ced. W hi l e, t o be s ur e, A dey emi w as pl ace d i n cus t odyi n a r oom byhi m s el f forover fourhour s , he poi nt s t o no evi dence even s ugges t i ng thatthi s four
- hourw ai ts om ehow contr i but ed t o coer ci ng hi s s t at ement . M or eover , C r one expl ai ned thati tw oul d be7

comm on foranotherdet ect i ve ora s upervi s ort o chec k on a per s on bei ng hel d i n a r oom
a n d th a t, in f

a c t, h e h a d to ld th e s u p e rv is o r a n d th e d e s k p e rs o n to lo o k a f te r A d e y e m i. He a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t h a td u r i n g Ad e y e mi ’ s i n t e r v i e w i twa s c l e a rt o h i m th a tAd e y e mi under s t ood hi s r i ght s and ca l m l yans w er ed hi s ques t i ons . I ti s notenough t o s ay , as A dey emi s ay s , t hathe w as y oung and a ne ophyt e t o t he cr i m i nal j us t i ce s y s t em. H e w as ni net een y ear s ol d, a hi gh s chool gr aduat e, and a c ol l ege s tudenti n t he pr e- m ed pr ogr am
a t th e tim e h e w a s q u e stio n e d . V iew in g th e to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g h is interrog ati o n , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n d en y ing the m o ti o n to su p p ress A d ey em i’ s
s t at ementaft erfi ndi ng t hathe w as tw i ce gi ven w arni ngs , under s t ood hi s r i ght s , and k n o w in g ly an d in te llig e n tly re lin q u is h e d th o s e ri g h ts . See U n itedS ta tes v . Sriy u th , 98 F .3 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). N ei t herdi d t he D i s t r i ctC our tabus e i t s di s cr et i on m uch l es s comm i tpl ai n err or wi t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e n o w- c h a l l e n g e d j u r yi n s t ru c t i o n . “ F i r e a r m” i s d e f i n e d a t1 8 U. S
. C. § 921( a) ( 3) t o i ncl ude, among ot her s , “( A ) anyw eapon ( i ncl udi ng a s t art ergun) w hi ch
w i l l ori s des i gned t o orm ayr eadi l ybe conve r t ed t o expel a pr oj ect i l e bythe ac t i on of an
e x p lo siv e .” T h e D istric t C o u rt’s in stru c tio n tra c k e d th e e lem e n ts o f th is d e f in iti o n q u ite cl os el y . T he i ns t ruct i on s t at ed thata “f i r earm ” i s “anyw eapon w hi ch w i l l ori s des i gned t o o r , ma yr e a d i l yb e c o n v e r t e d t o e x p e l a p r o j e c t i l e b yth e a c t i o n o f

a n e x p l o s i v e . ” ( J . A. 6 0 5 .) T h e in stru c tio n th e n sta ted th a t “th e G o v e rn m e n t, un d e r th e law , is n o t re q u ire d to pr ove thatt he fi r earm w as oper abl e oractual l ycapa bl e of di s char gi ng a bul l etatthem o m en t th at i t w as u ti li ze d
. ” (J.A
. 6 0 5 -06
. )

A t th e c h a rg e c o n f

e re n c e , A d e y e m i’s c o u n se l h a d a sk e d w h e th e r th e C o u rt w o u ld i ncl ude i n i t s i ns t ruct i ons t he thi r d par agr aph of hi s pr opos ed fi r earm i ns t ruct i on. T he C our texpl ai ned thati tw oul d notgi ve thatpart i cul arl anguage butthatthe conc eptw as i m pl i ci ti n w hati tw as goi ng t o gi ve. C ouns el t ook no i s s ue w i t h t hatand i ns t ead w enton t o s ayt hathi s pr obl em w i t h t he governm ent ’ s pr opos ed i ns t ruct i on w as i t s us e i n t he
s econd pa r agr aph of the verb “w as ” r atherthan “i s . ” The C our tas ked couns el i f w hathe
w ant ed w as “w hi ch w i l l ori s des i gned orm aybe conve r t ed t o expel a pr oj ect i l e, ” and
couns el s ai d “Y es . ” The C our tr es ponded, “W el l , that ’ s w hat ’ s i n m ychar ge. ” C ouns el said “[ e]x ce ll en t. ” (J.A
. 5 7 8
. ) N o o b jecti o n w as tak en to an yp art of the f ir ea rm i ns t ruct i on t he C our tconcl uded thati tw oul d gi ve and no obj ect i on w as t aken t o t he in s tru c tio n a s g iv e n to th e ju ry. T h e re w a s n o p la in e rr o r. I V. W e w ill a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .