FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT SEPT 12, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1055 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Do ck et No . 0 7 -0 0 2 8 7 -C R- 1 -C LS -P WG UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us BRUCE LEVAN JEMIS ON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 12, 200 8) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Br uc e L ev anJe m iso n a

ppe al s hi s c onv ic tio n and 1 80- m onth se nte nc e fo r poss ession o f a f

irear m as a co n v i cted felon, in vio lation of 18 U.S. C. § 922 (g)(1). On appeal, he argues that the district court: (1) abused its discretion byadm itting at2

tr ia l the ir

re le vant and p re

j udi ci al tr an sc ri pt o f his gui lty ple a to a state ch arge f

or
carr y ing apis tol w ith out

ape rm it; ( 2) e rr ed

in de ny ing his m oti on f

or j udgm en t of acquittal when th e evid ence was in sufficient to j ustify the j ury ’ s verdict; and (3) er red in consid ering two prior convictions as separate and distin ct offenses f or the purposes
o f t h e A rme dC a r e e r

C r i mi n a l A c t( “A C C A ” )
. A f t e r t h o r o u g h r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. W e re vie wa n ob

j ec tio n to the a dm iss ionof e vid en ce at trial f

or abuse of discretion. U nited States v. Be asley , 72 F. 3d 15 18, 1524 (11t h Cir. 1996 ). How ever,
ev enif w e fi nd an a

buse of di sc ret ion , w e w ill not r ev er se “ ab se nt a

r ea sona ble lik el iho od tha t the de fe ndant’ s su bst an tia l r igh ts w er e affect ed
. ” I d. a t 15 24- 25 (quotation om itt ed ). Whi le w e ordinarily reviewthe sufficiency

of the evidence supp ortin g ac onvi ct ionde nov o, U nit ed S ta te s v. W al ke r, 490 F. 3d 1282 , 129 6 ( 11th Ci r. 200 7) , c er

t. de nie d, 128 S
. Ct
. 164 9 ( 2008 ), Je m iso n fa ile d to r en ewhis m oti on f o r j u d g me n to f

a c qu i t t a l
. We t h e r e f

o r e r e v i e wt h e s u f

f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e f

o r “a
m anifest m iscarria ge of j ustice,” which “ requires a finding that the evidence on a key elem ent of the offense is so tenuous that a conviction wouldb e s h o ck i n g .” United St at es v . M i l k i n t as , 4 7 0 F. 3 d1 3 3 9 , 1 3 4 3 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o t at i o n o m i t t ed ). We
re vie wde nov o th e distri ct co urt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

the dis tin ct

of fe nse s r equir em en t of th e ACCA. Uni te d S ta te s v . Pop e, 13 2 F .3d68 4, 6 89 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ).3

Fi rs t, w e fi nd n o m er it to Jem iso n’ s cont en tio n that the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s discretion byadm itting , in violation of Ru le 4 04(b), the transcript of his gui lty plea he ar ing f ro m th e st at e co urt pr oc ee din g f or c ar ry ing apis tol in a ve hic le w ith out a lic en se . U nde r Ru le 404 (b ), “ [e ] vid en ce of oth er c rime s, w ro ngs, or

a ct s is not
a d m i s s i b l e t o p r o v e t h e c h a r a c t e r o f ap e r s o n i n o r d e r

t o s h o wa c t i o n i n c o n f

o rm i ty the re w ith
. ” F ed
. R. E vid
. 404(b ). T hus, “ [e ] vid en ce of e xtr ins ic of

fe nse s is i n a d mi s s i b l e t o p r o v e t h a tt h e a c c u s e dh a s t h e p r o p e n s i t y t o c o mmi tt h e c r i me charged. ” U nited States v. V eltm ann, 6 F. 3d 1483, 1498 (11th Cir. 1993). How ever,
ev ide nc e is n ot e xtri ns ic under Ru le 404 (b ) w he re it

is “ (1 ) anunc harg ed

of fe nse which ar ose out o f th e sam e transaction or series of transactions as the charged
o f f e n s e , ( 2 ) n e c e s s a ry

t o c o m p l e t e t h e s t o ry

o f t h e c r i m e , o r

( 3 ) i n e x t ri cably int er tw ine d w iththe e vid en ce r eg ar din g th e ch ar ge d of fe nse . ” I d. Extrinsic evidence “ m ay , however, be adm issib le for other purpos es, such as pr oof of m oti ve , opp ortun ity , int en t, pr ep ar at ion , plan, kno w le dge , ide nt ity , or ab se nc e of m ist ak e or ac ci de nt. ” F ed
. R. E vid
. 404 (b ). T o be a dm iss ibl e unde r Ru le 4 04(b), “ (1) the evidence m ust be relevant to an issue oth er than the defen d an t ’s ch ar ac te r; ( 2) the re m

ust be suf fi ci en t proo f so tha t the f

ac tf ind er c oul d f ind that the de fe ndant c om

m itt ed the e xtr ins ic a ct ; and (3) the ev ide nc e m ust pos se ss p ro ba tiv e4

va lue that i s n ot subs tanti al ly outw ei ghe d by

und ue pr ej udi ce . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Pere z, 443 F.3d 772, 779 (11t h Cir. 2006 ). T he F ed er al Ru le s of

E vid en ce de fi ne “ re le vant evi de nc e” a s “ ev ide nc e ha vin g
an y te nd en cy

to m ak e the e xis te nc e of a ny f ac t tha t i s of

c onse que nc e to the de te rm inatio n of the ac tio n m or e pr oba ble or le ss p ro bable than it

w oul d be w ith out the e vid en ce . ” F ed
. R. E vid
. 401
. A ll re le vant e vid en ce is adm iss ibl e. F ed
. R. E vid
. 402. How ever, it “ m ay be excluded if its probative value is substan tially outweighed by the dange r of

unf ai r pr ej udi ce , c onf

usi on o f the iss ue s, or m isl ea din g the j ur y , or by c ons ider at ion s of

und ue de lay , w as te of

ti m e, or ne ed le ss p re se ntatio n of
cum ulative evidence.” Fed. R. Ev id. 403. Be cause it gives the dist rict court d i s c r e t i o n t o e x c l u d e o t h e rw i s e a d mi s s i b l e e v i d e n c e , R u l e 4 0 3 i s ap p l i e ds p a r i n g l y. United States v. Cole, 755 F. 2d 74 8, 766 (11th Cir. 1985). T hus, the balance under Ru le 403 w ei ghs in favor of adm iss ibi lity . U nit ed S ta te s v. T er za do- Ma dr

uga , 897 F. 2d 10 99, 1117 (11t h Cir. 1990 ). He re, the d i s t ri ct court did not abuse its discretion in adm itting the evidence be ca use it w as r el ev an t t o an is sue oth er than Je m iso n’ s c hara ct er , a nd its pr oba tiv e value was not substant ially outweighed by

the risk o f u n fa i r prej udice. S ee P erez ,J emison does not dispute the second pr ongof the Rule 404(b) test -- that is, that there 1 wa s su ff ic ie nt p ro of

fo r t he fa c tf ind e r t o f ind that th e de fe nd a

nt c omm itt e d th e e xtri ns ic a c t. Jemi so n’ s atte mpt

to f or c e a dis tin c tio n b e tw e e n th e wo rd s “ c arr y” and “ po sse ss” fa ils , 2 a s h e do e s n ot e xpla in h owthe e vid e nc e sh ow ingthat he c arr ie d a fi re arm did no t a lso te nd

to show that he possesse d the wea pon. 5 44 3 F.3 d at 77 9. Whil e the te xt o f A la
. Co de § 13 A -1 1- 73 d oe s no t a ppe ar to 1 include a knowledge requirem ent, it nevertheless requires p roof “ (1) th at t he accused
carr ie d apis tol , ( 2) in a ve hic le , an d ( 3) that the a cc use d ha d no li ce nse to carr y the pis to l.” S im s v. S ta te , 733 S o. 2d 9 26, 930 -3 1 ( A la
. Cr im
. App. 199 8)
. T hus, Je m iso n’ s a dm iss ionof

gui lt to the state c harg e is n ot onl y relev an t, but hig hly pr oba tiv e sin ce it

te nde d to sho w that Jem iso n had poss es sio n of the f ir earm on the da te in que sti on. S ee P er ez , 443 F
. 3d at 78 0 ( co nsi de ri ng the pr ose cu tor ia l nee d f or the evidence, the overall sim ilarity betwee n the extrinsic act and the charged offe nse,
an d te m por al r em ote ne ss)
. M or eo ve r, a ny unf ai r pr ej udi ce pos sib ly ca

use d by the 2 tr an sc ri pt w as m iti ga te d by the dis tr ic t co urt’ s lim iti ng ins tr uc tio n to the j ur

y that the state offense did not establish the knowledge r equirem ent of Sec tion 9 22(g)(1). See U nit ed S ta tes v. Edo uard , 485 F
. 3d 1 324, 134 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 7) ( co nsi de ri ng a district court’ s lim iting instruction relevant to w hether t he adm issio n of ev idence wa s unf ai rl y pr ej udi ci al ). F or

the se r ea sons , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d not ab use it s di sc re tio n in adm itting the transcript of Jem ison’s state c ourt guil ty plea.6

W e ne xt r ej ec t Je m iso n’ s c la im that th e distri ct

c ourt e rr ed

in de ny ing his
m oti on f or j udgm en t of ac qui tta l bec au se the ev ide nc e w as ins uf fi ci en t to ju sti fy

the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t, a nd r athe r, de m onstrate d that he did not ha ve kno w ing pos se ssi on o f the f ir earm . T o su

ppor t a c onvi ct ionund er

§ 92 2( g) (1 ), the gov er

nm en t m ust establish th at: (1) he knowingly po s s es s ed a firearm

or am m uniti on, (2) he w as pr ev iou sly

c onvi ct ed

of a n of fe nse pun ish ab le by a te rm of im pr iso nm en t e xc ee din g one y ear, and (3) the firearm or am m uniti on was in or af

fecting interstate com

m erce . U nit ed S ta te s v. P al m a, 511 F
. 3d 1 311, 131 5 (1 1thCi r. 200 8) , pe tit ionf or c er t. f ile d, (U .S . Apr. 2, 2008 ) (N o. 08-506 7). “ [Sec tion] 922(g) is a strict liability offense that doe s no t r equir e the pr ose cu tio n to pr ove that the c ri m ina l a cts we re don e w ith spe ci fi c cr im ina l i nte nt. ” Id
. (i nte rn al quo ta tio n om itt ed ). “ T he gov er nm en t ne ed

not pr ov e act ua l p os se ss io n i n ord er to ful fil l th e ‘kno win g’ req ui rem en t o f § 9 22 (g )(1 ).” U nit ed S ta te s v. Wri ght , 392 F
. 3d 1 269, 127 3 (1 1thCi r. 200 4)
. I nst ea d, “ it m ay be sh own th ro ug h c on st ru ct iv e p os se ss io n.” I d. Co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on m ay be sh own through evidence “ that the defendant exercised ownership, dom inion , or control over the f ir earm , or

the ve hic le c onc ea lin g th e fi re ar m . ” U nit ed St at es v. G unn, 369 F. 3d 1 229, 123 4 ( 11th Cir
. 2004 ). T hus, w e have he ld tha t “ a de fe ndant h ad kno w ing po ss es si on of a fir earm

when dri vi ng a car wi th th e weap on be ne at h t he dri ve r’s se at .” Wri ght , 392 F
. 3d at 12 73.7

De term ination s of

the c r e di bi l i ty

o f w i tne ss es fall w ithin the exclusive provin ce of the j ur y a nd m ay not be r ev isi te d un le ss the te sti m ony is “ inc re dib le as a m atte r of la w . ” U n i t e dS t a t e s v . C a l d e r o n , 1 2 7 F
. 3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 2 5 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( qu o ta tio n
om itt ed ), m odi fi ed on othe r gr ound s by U nit ed St at es v. T ole r, 144 F. 3d 1423 ( 11th Ci r. 199 8)
. “ [A ] state m en t by ade fe ndant, if

dis be lie ve d by

the jur y , m ay be
co nsi de re d a s subst an tiv e evi de nc e of the de fe ndant’ s gu ilt
. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Br ow n, 53 F.3 d 312, 314 ( 11th C ir
. 199 5)
. T hus, “ w he n ade fe ndant c hoos es to te sti fy , he
runs the r isk

that i f dis be lie ve d th e j ur y m igh t co nc lud e the opp osi te of his te sti m ony is true.” Id. (internal citation om itted). At Jem ison’s trial, one officer testified that Jem ison reached for the f loorboard of the ve hic le upo n ob se rv ing the of fi ce r ap pr oa chthe ve hic le a fter th e crash, a nd another officer

testified that he discovered the firear m in the m iddle of the f

loorboard of the v eh ic le dr ive n by

Je m iso n. T his e vid en ce a lon e is s uf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh Je m iso n’ s kn ow ing pos se ssi on o f the fir earm . S ee Wri ght , 392 F
. 3d at 12 73- 74. Furthe r, the j ur

y w as f re e to a cc ep t or

r ej ec t hi s m oth er ’ s te sti m ony , a nd m ost im portantl y , it w as fr ee to tr eat Jem iso n’ s ownte sti m ony a s su bst an tiv e ev ide nc e of his gui lt
. S ee Br ow n, 53 F
. 3d at 31 4. O n th is r ec or d, the e vid en ce w as not so tenuou s and sho cking as to reveal a m anifest injustice, see Milk i n t as, 470 F. 3d at8

1343 , a nd a s ar es ult , the dis tr ic t co ur t di d no t e rr in de ny ing Je m iso n’ s m oti on f or j udgm ent of acquittal based on ins ufficiency of the evidence. Finally , we are un persuaded by Jem ison’s argum ent that the district court erre d in consid ering two prior convictions as separate and distin ct offenses f or the purposes of the AC CA. Pursuant to the ACC A, if a person having 3 prior convictio ns “ for a vio le nt f el ony or ase riou s dr ug of

fe nse , or both, c om

m itt ed on o cc as ion s di ff

er en t fr om one a nothe r, ” is c onvi ct ed of il le ga l po sse ssi on of a fir earm unde r § 922( g) , the district court m

ust im pose a p ri s on sentence of not less th an 15 y ears. 18 U. S. C. § 92 4( e) (1 ). “ [A ] de fe ndant is subj ec t to the se nte nc e en hanc em en t of the A CC A if each of the thre e previous convi ctions arose out o f a separ ate and distinct crim inal ep iso de
. ” P ope , 132 F
. 3d at 68 9 ( int er na l qu otatio n om itt ed ). “ [T ] he suc ce ssf ul
com pletion of one crim e plus a sub sequent cons cious decisio n to com m it another cri m e m ak es th at se co nd cri m e di st in ctfro m th e fi rs t fo r th e p ur

po se s o f th e ACCA.” Id. at 692 (internal quo tation om itted). A lth ough Je m iso n insis ts tha t the co nse cu tiv e num be ri ng of the c harg es , the te m por al pr oxi m ity of the of

fe nse s, an d the ide nti ty of the vic tim showthat hi s pr ior of fe nse s f or dis tr ibu tio n of

c oc ai ne w er e not

se parate a nd d ist inc t w ith in the m eanin g of the A CC A , w e ha ve he ld tha t “ ne ith er the w or din g of the A CC A nor it s le gis la tiv e histo ry revea ls any intent th at the predicate of fenses be separated by

som e substanti al9

am ount of ti m e. ” S ee id. a t 69 1. As we ex pla ine d, “ the dif fe re nt o cc as ion
re qui re m en t w as int en de d to pr ev en t c ount ing sim ult an eo us c ri m es se parate ly , not to pr ev en t the se parate c ount ing of cr im es that the de fe ndant com m itt ed in co nne ct ion wit h, bu t di sti nc t f

ro m , one a nothe r. ” S ee id. a t 69 2. I nst ea d, the r el at ion shi p be tw ee n th e pr ed ic at e of fe nses is irr el ev an t so lon g a s th e de fe ndant s uc ce ssf ull y
co m ple te d th e fi rs t c ri m e an d m ad e a subs eq ue nt c onsc iou s de ci sio n to c om m it the
se co nd o ff

en se . S ee id. S inc e Je m iso n c onc ed es that he sold co ca ine in tw o se parate tr an sa ct ion s ov er

a24- hour

pe ri od b etw ee n Augus t 16 a nd 1 7, 198 8, an d does n ot dis put e that he ha d am eanin gf ul o ppor tun ity to de sis t i n hi s ac tiv ity a ft er the
co m pl et io n of the f

ir st c oc ai ne sa le , his c la im m ust be r ej ec te d. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr

in se nte nc ing Je m iso n a s athr ee ti m e of fen de r un der the A CC A , be ca

use ea ch of Je m iso n’ s thr ee pr ev iou s conv ic tio ns ar ose out of se parate
a n dd i s t i n c tc r i mi n a l e p i s o d e s , a n dw e t h e r e f o r e a f f i rm. AFFIRMED.