# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 11 42

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ky le Jo se ph Turn er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 16
Fi le d: Nov em

be r 22 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BENTON, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

K yl e J o s e p h Turn er pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of po ss es si on of a fir earm an d

am m un it io n by an un l a w fu l dr ug us er in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (3 ) an d

92 4( a)(2 ), co nd it io ne d on hi s rig ht to ap pe al th e de ni a l of hi s pr et ria l m ot io n to

di sm is s. He arg ue s on ap pe al th at 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (3 ) is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e

an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e va rio us se nt en ci ng erro rs

. W e rem an d f o r f u r th er

pr oc eed in gs

.I.

On Ju ne 11

, 20 15 st at e c o r r e c ti on s of fic er St ev e W arn er vi si te d th e ho m e of
Ky le Turn er who was se rv in g a st at e pr ob at io na ry se nt en ce. Turn er to ld of fic er

W arn er th at he ha d a sh ot gu n in hi s po ss es si on

. W arn er lo cat ed th e sh ot gu n in

Turn er's be dr oo m ne xt to so m e am m un it io n. Late r th at da y , Turn er pr ov id ed a ur in e

sa m pl e th at te st ed po si ti ve fo r m et ha m ph et am in e. He was th erea fte r in di ct ed fo r

po ss es si on of a f

i r e a r m by an un la wfu l dr ug us er in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§ 92 2( g) (3 ), sp eci fic al ly f o r p os se ss in g a fir earm whi le be in g an "u nl awfu l us er of

m et ha m ph et am in e."

Turn er fil ed a m ot i o n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t. He arg ue d th at § 92 2( g) (3 )

was un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e as ap pl ie d to hi s co nd uc t be cau se hi s in di ct m en t fai le d

to al le ge th at he "en ga ge d in reg ul ar u s e o f m et ha m ph et am in e." The go ve rn m en t

res po nd ed th at th e m ot io n to di sm is s w as pr em at ur e be cau se it tu rn ed on ev id en ce

th at wou ld be pr es en te d at tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at

th e in di ct m en t al le ge d su ffi ci en t fact s to de feat Turn er's va gu en es s ch al le ng e. Turn er

su bs eq ue nt ly en te red a co nd it io na l gu il ty pl ea, res erv in g hi s rig ht to ap pe al th e de ni al

of hi s m ot io n to di sm is s. Turn er's pl ea ag reem en t st at ed th at on Ju ne 11

, 20 15 he

"was an un la wfu l u se r of

m et ha m ph et am in e." Th e ag reem en t fu rth er s ta te d t ha t o n

Ju ne 11

, 20 15 he ha d "t es te d po si ti ve fo r m et ha m ph et am in e" an d "ad m it te d to us in g

m et ha m ph et am in e ap pr ox im at el y on e week pri or ."

Afte r co nd it io na ll y pl ead in g gu il ty, Turn er m ov ed fo r reco ns id erat io n of th e

mo ti on to di sm is s. Turn er al so req ue st ed an ev id en ti ary he ari ng to in tro du ce t h e
do cu m en ta ry "ev id en ce up on whi ch [h e] was in di ct ed " an d "u po n whi ch th e pl ea was

e n t e red ." The go ve rn m en t's op po si ng m ot io n in cl ud ed ad di ti on al ex hi bi ts th a t

pu rp or te dl y sh owe d Turn er's pr io r dr ug us e. The di st ric t co ur t on ce ag ai n de ni ed th e

m ot io n to di sm is s, thi s tim e fin di ng th at th e go ve rn m en t's ev id en ce est ab li sh ed th at

-2

-Turn er ha d en ga ge d in "re gu la r dr ug us e" at a ti m e "o ve rla pp in g hi s po ss es si on of a

fir earm ." Turn er was su bs eq ue nt ly se nt en ced to 15 m on th s i mp r is on m en t, an d

ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g b ot h t he de ni al of h is m ot io n t o d is m is s an d h is sen te nc e.

II.

Turn er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot i o n to di sm is s whi ch

rai se d th e affi rm at iv e de fe n s e th at 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (3 ) was un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

va gu e as ap pl ie d to th e fact s of hi s cas e. W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n to di sm is s
de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Hug ga ns , 65 0 F.3 d 12 10

, 12 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). A cri m in al

st at ut e is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e in vi ol at io n of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t du e pr oc es s
cl au se if it "fa il s to gi ve or di na ry pe op le fai r no ti ce of th e co nd uc t it pu ni sh es , or [is ]

so st an da rd le ss th at it in vi te s arb it rary en fo rcem en t." Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5

S. Ct . 25 51 , 25 56 (20 15 ).

Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(1 ) pe rm it s pa rti es to "ra is e by

pr et ria l m ot io n an y de fen se , ob jecti on , or req ue st th at th e co ur t can de te rm in e wit ho ut

a tri al on th e m eri ts ." A m ot io n is cap a b l e of pr et ria l de te rm in at io n "i f tri al of th e

fact s su rro un di ng th e co m m is si on of th e al le ge d of

fen se wou ld be of no as si st an ce in

de te rm in in g th e va li di ty" of th e m ot io n. Uni te d St at es v. Co vi ng to n, 39 5 U.S. 57

, 60
( 1 9 6 9 )

. The di st ric t co ur t m us t ru le on su ch a m ot io n be fo re tri al un le ss th ere i s

" g o o d cau se to de fer a ru li ng " an d de ferr al wil l no t "ad ve rs el y affe ct a pa rty's rig h t

to ap pe al ." Fed . R. Cri m . P. 12 (d ).

W e co nc lu de th at "a tri al on th e m eri ts " was ne ed ed to de ci de Turn er's pr et ria l

m ot io n to d i s mi s s

. As a pr el im in ary m at te r, th e pa rti es di sp ut e wha t ev id en ce th e
di st r i c t c ou rt co ul d co ns id er in m ak in g it s ru li ng

. Co ur ts m ay co ns id er ev id en ce
be y on d th e pl ead in gs to m ak e fact ua l fin di ng s in pr et ria l or de rs

. See Uni te d St at es v.

Bl oo m fie ld

, 40 F.3 d 91 0, 91 3– 15 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (en ba nc ); se e al so Fed

. R. Cri m

. P.

12 (a) (d efi ni ng "p le ad in gs "). In de ed

, Ru le 12 co nt em pl at es th at di st ric t co ur ts m ay

-3

-so m et im es m ak e f act ua l fin di ng s whe n ru li ng on pr et ria l m ot io ns an d req ui res th at

th e co ur t "s ta te it s es se nt ia l fin di ng s on th e reco rd ." Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 12 (d ). Co ur ts

m ay no t, ho wev er, m ak e fact ua l fin di ng s whe n an is su e is "i ne vi ta bl y bo un d up wit h

ev id en ce ab ou t th e al le ge d of fen se it se lf." Uni te d St at es v. Grim m et t, 15 0 F.3 d 95 8,

96 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W il s o n , 2 6 F .3d 14 2, 15 9 (D.C. Ci r.

19 94 )). The rel ev an t q ue st io n is th us no t what ev id en ce the co ur t re li ed up on in it s

ru li ng , bu t ra th er wh at type o f fac tu al fin di ng it m ad e.

The ph ras e "u nl awfu l us er of

. . . an y co nt ro ll ed s u bs ta nc e" in 18 U.S.C.
§ 92 2( g) (3 ) is no t de fin ed by st at ut e an d "ru ns th e ris k of be in g un co ns ti tu t io na ll y

va gu e wit ho ut a jud ic ia ll y -cre at ed te m po ral ne xu s be twee n th e g u n p os se ss io n an d

reg ul ar dr ug us e." Uni te d St at es v. Turn ba ll

, 34 9 F.3 d 55 8, 56 1 (8 th C i r

. 20 03 )
(em ph as is ad de d)

, va cat ed

, 54 3 U.S. 10 99 (2 00 5)

, rei ns ta te d, 41 4 F.3 d 94 2 (8 th Ci r.)
(p er cu ria m ). In or de r to ru le on Turn er's as ap pl ie d co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e, th e
di st ric t co ur t th eref

or e ha d to de te rm in e whe th er he ha d en ga ge d in "re gu la r dr ug us e"

at th e ti m e he po ss es se d t he fir earm . The "f act s s ur ro un di ng th e co m m is si on of th e

al le ge d of

fen se " wou ld as si st wit h th at de te rmin at io n, an d th e co nt es te d de fen se

th eref or e co ul d no t be ru le d up on wit ho ut a "t ria l on th e m eri ts ." See Co vi ng to n, 39 5

U.S. at 6 0; Fed . R. Cri m . P. 12 (b )(1 ).

W e co nc lu de th at th e d is tri ct co ur t er red by defi ni ti ve ly ruli ng on th e m ot io n

at t h a t p o i n t in st ead of in fo rm in g Turn er th at it wou ld de fer a ru li ng un ti l tri al

. Pret ria l moti on s sh ou ld be ru le d on un le ss th ere is "g oo d cau se to de fer a ru li ng ."

Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 12 (d ). Goo d cau se ex is ts an d a de ci si on sh ou ld be de ferr ed if

di sp os in g of th e pr et ria l m ot io n req ui r e s maki ng fact ua l de te rm in at io ns th at "fa ll []

wit hi n th e pr ov in ce of th e ul ti m at e fin de r of fact ." Uni te d St at es v. W il so n, 26 F.3 d

14 2, 15 9 (D.C. Ci r. 19 94 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Sh or tt Acco un ta nc y Co rp ., 78 5

F.2 d 1 44 8, 1 45 2 (9 th Cir . 19 86 )).

-4

-H e re, th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d no t ru le on Turn er's as ap pl ie d co ns ti tu ti on al

ch al le ng e wit ho ut res ol vi ng fact ua l iss ue s rel at ed to hi s al le ge d of fen se , su ch as th e

ex te nt of hi s dr ug us e, an d th eref or e th e co ur t sh ou ld ha ve de ferr ed ru li ng un ti l tri al

. The co ur t's pr em at ur e ru li ng pr ejud ic ed Turn er's ab il it y to ob ta in ap pe ll at e rev ie w of

hi s co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e, fo r he co nd it io na ll y p l ed gu il ty un de r hi s m is ta ke n

as su m pt io n th at he co ul d "h av e an ap pe ll at e co ur t rev ie w an ad ve rs e de te rm in at io n"

of hi s m ot io n to di sm is s. See Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 11 (a)( 2)

. He co ul d no t ha ve ob ta in ed

su ch an ad ve rs e de te rm in at io n with ou t pro ceed in g to tri al

, ho wev er, and th us co ul d

no t bo th pl ead gu il ty an d ob ta in ap pe ll at e rev ie w of hi s co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e. Had

th e di st ric t co ur t in fo rm ed Turn er th at it wou ld ha ve to de fer a fin al ru li ng on hi s

m ot io n, Tu rn er co ul d h av e "m ov e[d ] to va cat e [h is ] gu il ty pl ea[]" and "p ro ceed [ed ]

to tri al on th e or ig in al ch arg es

. " S e e G r i mm e tt

, 15 0 F.3 d at 96 2. W e rem an d fo r

Turn er t o h av e th e o pp or tu ni ty to co ns id er t hi s ch oi ce. 1

III.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the di st ric t cou rt ord er den y in g Turn er's m ot io n to

di sm is s is rev ers ed

, th e jud gm en t i s v a c a t ed

, an d th e cas e is rem an de d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

. 2

Alt ho ug h a faci al ch al le ng e to 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (3 ) c o u l d b e br ou gh t in a 1

pr et ria l m ot io n to di sm is s, se e Uni te d St at es v. Po pe , 61 3 F.3 d 12 55

, 12 61 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 10 ), a pa ne l of ou r co ur t ha s he ld th at cri m in al st at ut es ch al le ng ed on no n Fi rs t
Amen d ment gr ou nd s are no t am en ab le to faci al at ta ck s. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Gha ne , 6 73 F.3 d 77 1, 77 7 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ); b ut see Jo hn so n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 1 35 S.
Ct

. at 22 61 (s ta ti ng th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t "h ol di ng s sq ua rel y co nt rad ic t th e th eo ry th a t a v a g u e pr ov is io n is co ns ti tu ti on al m erel y be cau se th ere is so m e co nd uc t th at cl earl y fal ls wit hi n t he pro vi si on 's g ras p" ).

Bec au se of th is di sp os it io n, it is n o t ne ces sa ry to reac h Turn er's al te rn at iv e 2

se nt en ci ng arg um en ts

.

-5

-