[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 52 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-0 00 56 -LGW -J EG-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e,

ve rs us JASON CHR ISTOPHER WA LKER, a.k .a. W eeze y , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen dant- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 11 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ja so n C hr is to ph er Walk er ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d t ot al 22 5- m on th

se nt en ce fo r th ree c ou nt s o f po ss es si on of afir earm by a con vi ct edfel on , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ); o ne co un t o f po ss es si on of a n u nr eg is te red fir earm , invi ol at io n o f 26 U.S.C. §§ 58 41 , 58 61 (d ); a ndon e co un t o f un la wfu l tra ns fer o f a fi rearm , invi ol at io n o f 26 U.S.C. §§ 58 12 , 58 61 (e). Fi rs t, h e arg ue s th atth e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y erre d i n o ve rru li ng hi s B at so n o bjec ti on . Seco nd , he arg ue s t ha t t he co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n re m ov in g a n e m pa ne le d ju ro r du e to hi s p rio r kn owl ed ge of t he un de rlyin g i nv es ti ga ti on . Thir d, h e arg ue s t ha t t he
co urt’s s up pl em en ta l ju ry in st ru ct io n was erro ne ou s. Fo urth , he a rg ue s t ha t t he
m ag is tra te jud ge erre d i n d en y in g h is m ot io n t o s ev er the co un ts in th e in di ct m en t. Fi fth , he arg ue s t ha t t he co urt erredin ap pl y in g t he arm edcare er cr im in al st atut ory se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t. Si xt h andfin al ly, he arg ue s tha t t he co urt cl earl y erre d in refu si ng to ap pl y

anacce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y sen te nc e reduc ti on an d t he reb y pu ni sh edhi m

forgo in g t o t ria l. I . A di st ric t co urt’s re so lu ti on of aBat so n o bjec ti on th attu rn s o n c red ib il it y is
en ti tl edto gre atde fere nc e an d i s re vi ewedon ly for cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Hil l, 6 43 F.3d80 7, 8 37 -3 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . “ A di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs reg ard in g whe th er a p erem

pt ory st rik e was ex erci se d fo r a d is cri m in at ory reas on lar ge ly
2in vo lv e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns an d a re the refo re en ti tl edto gre atde fere nc e.”

Uni te d S ta te s v . Nov at on , 27 1 F .3d96 8, 1 00 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)
. Und er the Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e, th e g ov ern m en t m ay no t “ ch al le ng e po te nt ia l ju ro rs so le ly on a cco un t o f th ei r rac e o r on th e as su m pt io n t ha t b la ck juro rs as agro up wil l b e u nabl e im pa rti al ly to co ns id er the [go ve rn m en t]’ s ca se ag ai ns t a b la ckde fen da nt .” Bat so n v . Kentuc ky, 476 U.S. 79 , 89 , 10 6 S . Ct. 1 71 2, 17 19 (19 86 ). The d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie s a thr ee-s te p ana lysis in ev al ua ti ng equa l pr ot ect io n c ha ll en ge s t o t he go ve rn m en t’s u se of p erem pt ory st rik es . Hil l, 6 43 F.3 d a t 8 37 . Firs t, a d efen da ntm us t m ak e a p rima facie sh owi ng of p ur po se fu l di sc riminat io n b as edup on a pr oh ib it edgro un d. Id . Seco nd , up on su ch a sh owi ng , th e g ov ern m en t m

us t arti cu la te a no nd is cri m in at ory ex pl an at io n fo r th e ch al le ng e. Id . Thir d, t he tri al co urt m us t d et erm in e if

th e d efen da ntest ab li sh edpu rp os efu l di sc riminat io n. Id . Thro ug ho ut , th e u lt im at e b ur de n o f pe rs ua si on res ts with t he de fen da nt . Id . Gener al ly, th e d efen da ntm us t s ho w th atth e g ov ern m en t at te m pt ed to ex cl ud e “ as m an y

bl ackpe rs on s as itco ul d fr om th e jury.” Id. at83 9. W e g en eral ly w il l n otad dr es s an arg um en t, ra is edforth e fi rs t t im e o n ap pe al , th at“ th ere wer e si m il arl y si tu at edwhi te ve ni re m em be rs who m

th e pr os ecu ti on di d n otst rik e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hou st on , 45 6 F .3d13 28 , 13 38 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ). The re co rdon ap pe al wou ldli ke ly be in su ffi ci en t t o c on si de r su ch an 3arg um en t, an d t he di stric t co urt i s n otrequi redto su a sp on te “ dr aw co m paris on s th atno pa rty ask editto dra w.” Id
. at13 39
. Here, ev enass um in g a rg ue nd o t ha t Walk er m ad e o uta pr im a fac ie cas e be lo w, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n o ve rru li ng W al ke r’s Bat so n ch al le ng e. The g ov ern m en t arti cu la te d l eg it im at e rac e-n eu tra l re as on s fo r it s pe rem pt ory ch al le ng es —n am el y , th atth e fi rs t p ro sp ect iv e juro r was un em pl oyed,
an d t he sec on d was no t d res se d app ro pr ia te ly for co urt an d h adno t re cei ve d ahi gh
sc ho ol di pl om a. The c ou rt p ro pe rly reli edon it s i nd ep en de ntob se rv at io ns of b ot h th e p ro se cu to r an d t he ch al le ng edjuro rs in de te rm in in g tha t t he go ve rn m en t’s pr of fere d e xp la na ti on s wer e cre di bl e, an d n ot hi ng in th e rec or d s ug ge st s ot he rwis e. Thre e b la ck

ve ni re m em

be rs were n otch al le ng edby the pro se cu to r. In so far a s Walk er n ow ar gu es th atth ere wer e si m il arl y si tu at edwhi te juro rs who
were n otch al le ng edby the pro se cu ti on , th is arg um en t was no t b efo re the di st ric t co urt, the reco rdis ot he rwis e si le nt , andwe wil l n otad dr es s i t o n app eal
. 1 II. A di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to rem ov e a jur oris rev ie wedon ly for ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d S ta te s v . Aug us ti n, 6 61 F.3d11 05 , 11 29 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). The
co urt m ay ex cu se a juro r an d re pl ace h im with a n a lt ern at e if

, pri orto
In any event, we find no merit to this contention. 1 4de li be rat io ns , th e juro r is fou ndto be “un ab le ” o r “ di squa li fie d” to pe rfo rm hi s du ti es . Uni te d S ta te s v . Fajard o, 7 87 F.2d15 23 , 15 25 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). Abs en t a sh owi ng of b ia s o r pr ejud ic e to th e d efen da nt , we wil l n otdi sturb t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on . Uni te d S ta te s v . De La Vega , 91 3 F .2d86 1, 8 69 (11 thCir
. 19 90 ). Preju di ce i nc lu de s d is ch arg e o f a juro r wit ho utfactua l s up po rt o r fo r a le ga ll y irr el ev an t re as on . Id
. The tri al jud ge “ do es no t n eeda de fen da nt ’s con se nt to rep la ce a ju ro r wit h a n a lt ern at e b efo re the jury ret ire s; all th atis requi redis a reas on ab le cau se forth e rep la cem en t.” Fajard o, 7 87 F.2dat 1 52 6. 2 Here, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re m ov in g the juro r. Afte r op en in g s ta te m en ts , th e juro r sa idth athe was fa m il ia r wit h t he un de rlyin g un de rco ve r in ve st ig at io n. Sp eci fic al ly, two of h is res taur an t’s fo rm er em pl oyees freque nt edth e st or efro ntto bu y cig aret te s an d, fo ll owi ng th e arr es ts , hadto ldhi m th atth ei r fri en ds were “ se t up” in “ anen trapm en t t y pe th in g.” Altho ug h t he juro r ul ti m at el y

sai d t ha t h e wou ldba se hi s v erd ic t s ol el y on th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tri al , he h adin it ia ll y

st at edth athe was u ns ur e if he wou ldbe ab le to setasi de th is pr io r in fo rm at io n. Th e co urt, b as edon it s o wn o bs erv at io ns of t he juro r du rin g

Walker cites the sta

ndard f or strikinga juror when the jury has alre ady

begun 2 deliberations. In that situation, we apply a more stringe nt standard be cause of the da ng er that a dissenting juror

may be excused ba sed on the c ourt’s “mistaken vie w that the juror is e ng ag ing in impermissible nulli fication.” Augustin, 661 F.3d at 1129. Howe ver, a s Walker ac knowledg es, the juror in this case was e x cused w ell befor e deliber ations, and thus the heightened standa rd is not applicable he re. 5qu es ti on in g, fo un d t ha t h e was in cap ab le of d is reg ard in g t he pri orin fo rm at io n a nd

de li be rat in g i m

pa rti al ly. W e fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n t he co urt’s d eci si on to ex cu se a juro r who ha d p rev io us kn owl ed ge of s om e o f th e fac ts un de rlyin g W al ke r’s cas e. III. W e o rd in ari ly revi ew fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n t he di st ric t co urt’s re sp on se to qu es ti on s fr om

th e jury. Uni te d S ta te s v . Pha kn ik on e, 60 5 F .3d10 99 , 11 07 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Add it io na ll y , a di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e a req ue st edin st ru ct io n i s ge ne ral ly rever si bl e err oron ly whe re (1 ) th e reque st edin stru ct io n was a co rrec t st at em en t o f th e la w, (2) i ts subjec t m at te r was no t s ub st an ti al ly cov eredby oth er in st ru ct io ns , and(3) th e fai lu re t o g iv e th e reque st edin st ru ct io n s eri ou sl y im pa ire d th e d efen da nt ’s abi li ty to d efen d h im se lf. Uni te d S ta te s v . Carra sc o, 3 81 F.3d 12 37 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Ther e g en eral ly is a “ st ro ng pre su m pt io n” th atjuro rs fo ll ow i ns tru ct io ns gi ve n t o the m by the di st ric t co urt. See Hi ll , 64 3 F .3dat 8 29
. Here, Walk er d idno t o bjec t t o the di st ric t co urt’s s up pl em en ta l i ns tru ct io n. Alt ho ug h we r ev ie w th is ob jecti on on ly for p la in erro r, se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Ch is ho lm , 73 F.3d30 4, 3 07 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ), we fin d n o e rro r atall by the di st ric t co urt. The co urt ex pr es sl y in st ru ct edth e jury to c on si de r th e supp le m en ta l in st ru ct io n a lo ng with a ll th e p rev io us ly giv ench arg es , andno th in g i n t he reco rd 6cas ts any

do ub t o n t he “ st ro ng ” p res um pt io n tha t t he jury fo ll owe d i ts in st ru ct io ns . See Hi ll , 64 3 F .3dat 8 29
. IV. W al ke r co nt en ds th atth e m ag is tra te an d d is tri ctco urt erredby notgra nt in g W al ke r’s m ot io n t o s ev er h is ch arg es . W e wil l re ve rs e o nl y wher e th e d is tri ct co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n a ndth e d efen da ntsu ffer edco m pe ll in g p reju di ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Hersh , 29 7 F .3d12 33 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). It s eem s u nl ik el y

th atW al ke r pr op erl y

ob jecte d t o t he m ag is tra te ’s fin di ng s, se e Fed . R. Cri m . P. 59 (a); Uni te d S ta te s v . Sch ul tz , 56 5 F .3d13 53 , 13 60 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ), bu t ev enad dr es si ng th e m eri ts , we fin d n o abu se of d is cret io n i n t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on . The u nd erl y in g fa ct s o f th e th ree t ran sa ct io ns ov erl ap pe d si gn ifi can tl y

with o ne an othe r, an d c on du ct in g s ep arat e tr ia ls wou ldcla sh si gn ifi can tl y

with o urin te res t i n ju di ci al eco no m y an d a dm in is tra ti on . See Un it ed St at es v. Ko pi tu k, 6 90 F.2d12 89 , 13 18 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). V. W e rev ie w de n ov o que st io ns of s ta tu to ry in te rp ret at io n, i nc lu di ng whet he r of fen se s co un t as sep arat e fel on ie s fo r pu rp os es of t he en ha nc edsen te nc e pr ov is io n o f th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”)
. Uni te d S ta te s v . Lee, 20 8 F.3 d 1 30 6, 1 30 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . Und er the ACCA, a d efen da ntis subjec t t o a 7fif

te en -y ear s ta tu to ry

m in im um sen te nc e whe re h e b oth v io la te d 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g ) an d h as th ree p rio r co nv ic ti on s fo r a v io le ntfel on y or s eri ou s d ru g of fen se , “ co m

m it te d o n o ccas io ns di ffer en t fr om on e an ot he r.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 1)
. Gen eral ly, bu rg la ry

co ns ti tu te s a v io le ntfel on y forpu rp os es of t he ACCA. 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( ii ). The d is tri ctco urt, i n app lying th e p ro vi si on s o f th e ACCA t o apri orco nv ic ti on to whi ch th e d efen da ntpl ead edgu il ty, sh ou ld ge ne ral ly loo k o nl y

to “ th e te rm s o f th e ch arg in g d oc um en t, the term s o f a p le a ag reem en t o r tr an sc rip t o f co ll oquy bet ween jud ge an d d efen da ntin whi ch th e factua l b as is forth e p le a was co nf irmed by the de fen da nt , or t o s om e co m pa rab le jud ic ia l re co rdof t hi s i nf orm at io n.” Sh ep ardv. Un it edSta te s, 5 44 U.S. 13 , 26 , 12 5 S . Ct. 1 25 4, 1 26 3 (2 00 5) ; Un it edSta te s v . Sne ed , 60 0 F .3d13 26 , 13 32 -3 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (ru li ng th atSh ep ard al so li m it s t he ev id en ce t ha t the co urt ca n co ns id er i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r th e u nd erl y in g c rimes oc cu rredon di ffer en t oc cas io ns ). As l on g a s t he pre di cat e cri m es were s uc ces si ve rathe r th ansi m ul ta ne ou s,

“ th ey co ns ti tu te sep arat e cri m in al ep is od es forpu rp os es of t he ACCA.” Lee, 2 98 F.3 d a t 1 30 7. Cr im es are “ su cces si ve ” whe re the y were s ep arat edby a m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty to d es is t t he cri m in al act iv it y an d re fle ct ed“ di st in ctag gr es si on s,” 8pa rti cu la rly where th e d efen da ntco m m it te d t he cri m es in di ffer en t p la ces . Id
. (quo ta ti onom it te d)
. Here, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in ap pl y in g the arm edcare er cr im in al
se nt en ce en ha nc em en t u nd er the ACCA. W al ke r’s pr io r in di ct m en t al le ge d tha t th e b ur gl ari es oc cu rredat f ou r di ffer en t s to rag e u ni ts lo cat edat t wo d iff eren t ad dr es se s. No ne of t he bu rg la rie s co ul d h av e b een co m m it te d s im

ul ta ne ou sl y . See Un it edSta te s v . Pop e, 13 2 F .3d68 4, 6 92 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). In de ed , W al ke r do es no t d is pu te th is co nc lu si on . Rath er, h e arg ue s o nl y th athe m ig htha ve be enco nv ic te d fo r be in g a n a cces so ry aft er the fact , rathe r th an fo r be in g t he pri nc ip al pe rp etrat orof t he fou r bu rg larie s. Walk er p ro vi de s n o Sh ep arddo cu m en ts to supp ort t hi s b al d a ss ert io n. Se e Sn eed , 60 0 F .3dat 1 33 2- 33 . The i nd ic tm en ts for

all fou r co un ts of b ur gl ary st at edth atW al ke r “ wit ho ut au th or it y an d wi th th e in te ntto co m m ita th eftth erei n, en te reda bu il di ng .” The di st ric t co urt d idno t err by relying on th es e Sh ep arddo cum en ts to co nc lu de th at W al ke r was th e p erp etrat orof t he un de rlyin g b ur gl ari es . VI. W e h av e h el d t ha t, “ [b ]ecaus e d em on strat io n o f whe th er o r no t t he de fen da ntha s p ers on al ly accep te d re sp on si bi li ty for h is cri m in al co nduc t re qu ire s a co ns id erat io n o f bo thob jecti ve fact or s an d s ub

jecti ve co ns id erat io ns of the 9de fen da nt ’s dem ean or an d s in ceri ty, th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n wi ll no t b e ov erturne d u nl es s i t i s wi th ou t fo un da ti on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cas ti ll o- Vale nc ia , 91 7 F .2d49 4, 5 00 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Altho ug h ade fen dantcan no t b e p un is he d b y a m or e se ve re s en te nc e b ecau se he ex erci se d h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto pro ceedto tri al , th e si m

pl e fac t t ha t h e “ was gi ve n alo ng er s en te nc e aft er tria l t ha n h e m ig ht well ha ve rece iv edha d h e p le a b arg ai ne d i s n otsu ffi ci en t t o s ho w th athe was pe na li zedforgo in g t o t ria l.” Co le v. Wain wrig ht , 61 4 F .2d67 , 69 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0)
. Sect io n 3 E1.1 of the Gui de li ne s s ta te s t ha t t he off en se lev el is de crea se d b y two po in ts if t he de fen dant“ cl earl y de m on st rat es acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y for hi s o ffen se .” U.S.S.G § 3 E1.1 (a). Th e co m m en ta ry to § 3 E1.1 expl ai ns th atth e ad jus tm en t “ is no t i nt en de d t o app ly to a d efen da ntwho pu ts th e g ov ern m en t t o i ts bu rd enof p ro of

at t ria l b y

de nyin g t he ess en ti al factua l el em en ts of g ui lt , is
co nv ic te d, an d o nl y

th enadm it s g ui ltan d e xp res se s re m or se .” U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 , cmt. 2 . “ Sect io n 3 E1.1 (a) i s n ota pu ni sh m en t; rathe r, th e reduc ti on foracce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

is a rewar d fo r th os e d efen da nt s wh o e xp res s g en ui ne rem or se for th ei r cri m in al co nduc t.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Carro ll , 6 F.3 d 7 35 , 74 0 (1 1t h C ir. 19 93 ). Howev er, the re ar e “ rare si tu at io ns ” whe re a d efen da ntwho pro ceed edto tri al co ul d qua li fy

fora do wnwar d a dju st m en t, s uc h a s wh ere ade fen da ntwentto 10tri al “ to ass ertan d p res erv e is su es th atdo no t re la te to factua l g ui lt(e.g ., to m ak e a

co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e to a st atut e o r a ch al le ng e to th e ap pl ic ab il ity of ast atut e to hi s co nduc t).” Id . at 7 41
. Add it io na ll y , a de fen da ntis no t b arre d a s a m at te r of la w fro m rece iv in g t he ad

jus tm en t “ m erel y

be cau se he ass ert edanen trapm en t de fen se at t ria l, ev enth ou gh so m e co urts ha ve vi ewedth e as se rti onof a n en trapm en t d efen se as the vi rtu al an ti th es is of a ccep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y .” Jo in er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 1 03 F.3d96 1, 9 63 (11 thCir . 19 97 ). Here, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n re fu si ng to ap pl y

anacce pt an ceof -res po ns ib il it y

sen te nc e reduc ti on . The co urt fo un d, i n l ig htof a ll th e fac ts an d ci rcu m st an ces , th atW al ke r ha d n otdi sp lay edany “ in di cat io n o f co nt rit io n.” Rat he r, W al ke r ha d p ro ceed edto tri al wher e h e arg ue d, am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t th e u nd erco ve r ATF ag en ts in du cedhi m to sel l an d t ha t s om eo ne els e h adcu t t he ba rrel of ash ot gu n tha t h e so ldto th e ag en ts . Add it io na ll y , un ob jecte d- to fact s i n th e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt a ll eg edth atW al ke r de cl in edto co op erat e wit h th e p ro ba ti on off

ic er ev enaft er h is co nv ic ti on s attri al
. Fi na ll y , no th in g i nd ic at es th atth e co urt i m po se d ato ta l 2 25 -m on th sen te nc e to pu ni sh W al ke r fo r ex erci si ng hi s ri gh t t o t ria l. To the co ntrary, the c ou rt ex pl ic it ly stat edth atW al ke r’s se nt en ce was in no way affe ct edby his ch oi ce t o g o to tri al , bu t i ns te adrefl ect edth e se rio us ne ss of h is cri m in al hi st ory an d h is 11pe rs on al cir cu m st an ces . See Ca rro ll , 6 F.3 d a t 7 40
.

AFFIRMED.

12