The Honor able De nise Pag e Hood, United States D istrict Court, E as tern District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. File Na

me: 07a0491n.06 Filed: Jul y

12, 2007 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 06-3214 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. DEAN SWAI

N, J R., De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E N OR TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

/ Be fore : MARTI

N and ROGERS, Circuit J udg es, and H OOD, District Judge

. * PER C URI AM. Def

endant De an Swain, Jr. appeals his c o nv ic tion for possession of coc aine with intent to dis tribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a ), possession of a firea rm in relation to a drug traff icking offe nse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and for be ing a felon in possession of a fire arm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ). Swain ra ises only o n e issue on appe al: whether the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jur

y instruc tio n o n Sw a in’ s f lig ht f ro m la w e nf or c e me nt m e ri ts r e ve rs a l of his conviction. For

the re asons that follow, we find that the cour t did not err in i n s t ru ct i n g the jury reg ardingevidenc e of Swa in’s flig ht and we a ccor dingly AFF I RM his conviction. I.No. 06-3214

Un ite d S tat es v . S wai n Pag e 2 On Octobe r 29, 2004, Swain was driving a 1985 mar oon Merc ury Marquis throug h Perkins To wn sh ip, Oh io. Pol ic e Of fi c e r Jos e phRot

un o w a s p ark e d in his c ru ise r w he n h e no tic e d Sw a in drive by . Offic er Rotuno observe d a spider- web cra ck i n t he windshield of Swain’ s vehicle. Rot un o b e g an f

oll ow ingSwa in’ s c ar a

nd ran the lic e ns e plate nu mbe r. Rot un o r e c or de d Sw a in trave ling at 50 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone. Also, the license plate number on Swain’s vehic le c a me b a c k

a s b e lo n g in g to a

ma nn a me d Q u in to nH u n te r , w h o h a d a s u s p e n d e d

li c ense. After rec eiving this information, Rotuno activated his lights and pulled Swain ove r. Rotuno approac hed the dr iver’s side door of Swain’s automobile, only to find it closed and the window rolled up. When he a sked Swain to roll down his window, Swain indicated the window was stuck a

nd could not be rolled dow n. Rotuno then asked S wain to open the door . Swain opened the door, steppe d o u t o f t h e car, and c losed the door be hind him. R otuno asked for his license, reg istration and proof of

insurance

. Swain was only able to provide a University of Toledo student identification ca

rd. F inding Swain una

ble to produce a drive r’s lice nse, re g istration, or proof of ins ur anc e , Ro tun o to ok

Swa in t o h is c ru ise r and loc ke d him int o the ba c ks e a t. B e fo re pu tti nghim in the backse at, Offic er Rotuno c onducted a pat-down of Swain to chec k for we apons. Swain wa s

no t ha nd c uf fe d o r o ff ic ia lly pla c e d und e r a

rr e st. Whil e Swain wa s in the backse at of the cr uiser, Rotuno chec ked the r eleva nt database and discovere d that Swain’s license had been s u s p ended due to failure to pa y child support. Driving on a suspende d license is an a rre stable off

ense, but Rotuno decide d to only issue a citation to S wain. Neve rtheless, beca

use S wain was the onl y occupa nt of t he vehicle and there wer e no other licensedNo. 06-3214

Un ite d S tat es v . S wai n Pag e 3 dr ive rs a va ila

ble , Ro tun o or de re d that the c ar be tow e d. Rot un o to ld S wa in h e c ou ld u se his c e ll phone to ca ll for a r ide. Wit h Swain still locked in the bac k of the c ruiser, Rotuno ca lled for a tow truck a

nd beg an an inventory

of the vehicle pe r depa

rtment policy . He be g an his inventory at the fr ont driver’ s side door. W hen R otuno opened the door, he observe d a .22 caliber revolve r on the floorboard betwe en the seat and the g as peda l. Rotuno shut the door without removing the gun, returned to t he re ar of his cruiser, a

nd radioe d for ba ckup office rs to a ssist in what was now g oing to be an ar rest of Swa in. Whe n a no the r o ff ic e r a rr ive d, Rot

un o too k Swa in ou t of the ba c ks e a t of his c ru ise r and a sk e d h im to f a c e the c ru ise r and pla c e his ha nd s on the ro of

. Th e n Rot

un o se arc he d Swa in a g a in. Duri ngthi s

se c on d sear c h, Swa in’ s w a ist ba nd and po c ke ts w e re mor e tho ro ug hly se arc he d ( ra

the r t ha n ju st patted down) reve aling $193 in cash. Rotuno then attempted to place handcuf fs on Swain, but he broke f ree and fle d. Soon therea fter, Swa in was appr ehende d. The subseque nt searc h of Swain’s c ar r evea led a bag containing over 4.76 gr ams of coc aine loc a te d in the dr ive r’ s si de do or

ma p p oc ke t, a

dig ita l sc ale wi th cocai ne r e sid ue on the c on so le betwee n the driver

and passe ng er se ats, and t h e p reviously mentioned loaded r evolver on the floorboar d in front of the dr iver’s se at. Swa in w a s indi c te d on J un e 2, 20 05 on thr e e c ounts : (1) po sse ssi on wi th int e nt to d istri bu te

coca ine, (2) usingand ca

rry ing a firea rm during and in relation to a drug traff icking crime, a

nd (3) being a fe lon in possession of a fire arm. On Aug ust 4, 2005, after a t wo -d ay t ri al , Swain was

c on vic te d o n a ll thr e e c ounts . O n Jan ua ry 23 , 2 00 6, S wai n was se nte nc e d to 10 1 mo nth s’ imprisonment, to be followed by three y ear s of supervise d rele ase.No. 06-3214

Un ite d S tat es v . S wai n Pag e 4 II. Swain asks us to determine w hether the district court e rre d when it i n s t ru cted the jur y reg ardingevidenc e of Swain’s flig ht from ar resting office rs. Swain ar g ues that the flig ht instruction

overe mphasized the evidenc e re lating to his flig ht from police of fice rs to the detriment of othe r evidentiar y issues in the case. This Court revie ws a dis trict court’s choice of jury instructions for abuse of discretion. United States v. Prince , 214 F.3d 740, 761 (6th Cir. 2000). A trial cour t has b ro ad d i s cr et i o ni ndra ft i n g j u ry i n s t ru ct i o n s an d d o es n o t ab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o nu n l es s t h e j u ry ch ar ge

“ f a il s a c c u r a te ly

to r e f le c t t h e la w.” Un i t ed States v. Layne , 192 F.3d 556, 574 ( 6th Cir. 1999) ( q u o t i n g United States v. Busac ca , 8 6 3 F

. 2 d 4 3 3 , 4 3 5 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) )

. M o r e o v e r , no sin g le provision of the jury

char g e may

be viewe d in isolation, rathe r, the cha rg e must be consider ed as a whole. Uni t ed Stat es v. Lee , 991 F.2d 343, 350 ( 6th Cir. 1993). A judg ment may be re verse d based upon a

n improp er jury

instruction “only

if the instructions, viewed a s a whole, w ere confusing , misleading , or pre judicial.” United States v. Harrod , 168 F.3d 887, 892 (6th Cir. 1999) (q u o t i n g Beard v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines , 900 F.2d 71, 72- 73 (6th Cir.1990)). Whil e the Supre me Court has expres s ed som e conc ern r eg ardingflig ht instructions, see Alberty v. U

nited States , 162 U.S. 499, 508-09 (1896), W ong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471, 483 n.10 (1963), this court has held t hat “flight i s g ener ally admissible as evidenc e of guilt, and that juries ar e g iven the powe r to deter mine ‘how much w ei gh t should be g iven to such evide nce.’ ” United States v. Touchstone , 7 2 6 F. 2 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 9 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 8 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . Craig , 522 F.2d 29, 32 ( 6th Cir. 1975) ). Be cause evidenc e of f light has be en held a s clea rly admissible, we must dec ide if the jury instruction give n failed a ccur ately to refle ct the law.No. 06-3214

Un ite d S tat es v . S wai n Pag e 5 Th e dis tr ic t c ourt g a ve the fo llo wi ngjur

y ins tr uc tio n r e g ard ingSwa in’ s f lig ht: You’ve hear d testimony

that afte r the c rime wa s s u p posed to have been committed, the defe ndant fled the scene . I f y ou believe the def endant f led, then y ou may co n s i d er t h is conduct, alongwith all the other e vidence , in deciding whether the g ov e rnme nt ha s pro ve d be y on d a r e a so na ble do ub t th a t he c omm itt e d th e c ri me c ha rg e d. Th is co nd

uc t may ind ic a te that he tho ug ht h e wa s g uil ty and wa s tr y ingto avoid punishment. On the other ha nd, sometimes an innocent person may flee for some other r eason. J A 252. Th is i ns tr uc tio n c los e ly

fo llo we d th e Sixth C ir c uit Pa tte rn I ns tr uc tio n 7 .1 4, wh ic h r e a ds : (1) You ha

ve hear d testimony that afte r the crime was supposed to have be en committed, the defe ndant _________. (2 ) I f you be lie ve that th e de fe nd ant _

__ __ __ _, the n y ou

may c on sid e r t

his conduct, a long w ith all the other evidenc e, in de ciding whether the g overnme nt has pr ov e d b e y on d a r e a so na ble do ub t th a t he c omm itt e d th e c ri me c ha rg e d. Th is c on du c t ma

y ind ic a te that he tho ug ht he w a s g uil ty and wa s tr y ingto a vo id punis hme nt. On

the oth e r h and , s ome tim e s an inno c e nt pe rs on may __

__ fo r s ome other re ason. We have dis c us se d Pa tte rn I ns tr uc tio n 7 .1 4 in

tw o r e la tiv e ly

re c e nt c a se s: United States v. Carter , 236 F.3d 777, 792 n.11 (6th Cir. 2001) and Un ite d S tat es v . D iak

ite , 5 F. App’ x 365, 370-71 (6th Cir. 2001) (unpublished). Carter approve d of Pattern Instruction 7.14, finding it “states that

e vid e nc e of

fl ig ht ma

yor ma yno t ind ic a te a

de fe nd ant’ s g uil ty

c on sc ie nc e or int e nt t o avo id punis hme nt, ” and thu s “ do e s no t a pp e ar to su g g e st g uil t on the pa rt of [de fe nd ant] be c a

us e of his decision not to testify

or explain incidents of flig ht.” 236 F.3d at 792 n.11. I n both case s, we approve d the use of the pattern instruc tion whe re there was adequate evidenc e that the def endant was fle eing appre hension by arr esting authorities. S

ee Ca r t er , 236 F.3d at 792 n.11 (approving instruction where defe ndant fled f rom police off

icer as off icer ap p ro ac hed him at a g as station);No. 06-3214

Un ite d S tat es v . S wai n Pag e 6 Di ak ite , 5 F. App’ x at 370-71 (a pproving instruction based on e vidence the def endant wa s awa

re his co-conspirators had bee n indicted but wher e there was no evidenc e defenda nt knew he had bee n indicted or that the police wer e about a rre st him). Her e, ther e is ade quate evidenc e that Swain wa s fleeingappre hension by arr esting authorities. I n fac t, Swain was in the proc ess of be ing ha ndcuff ed and a rre sted when he broke f

ree fr om t he po lic e and

fl e d, lit e ra lly

le a vin g the po lic e ho ldi ng the ja c ke t he ha d be e n we ari ng . Thi s evidenc e supports the dis t ri ct court’s decision to instruct the jury on flig ht, and the g iven jury instruction tracks Patter

n I nstruction 7.l4 verbatim, which has previously been he ld by

this Court to acc urate ly

ref lect t h e l aw . Acc ording ly , the district court did not abuse its discre tion by instructing the jury

on flig ht using Pattern I

nstruction 7.14. III

. For the fore g oing r easons, we AFF I RM Swain’s conviction.