1

08 -07 10 -cr USA v. Melv ey UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OFAP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 

## SUMMARY ORD ER
R u l i n gs b y su m m ary ord er d o n ot ha v e preced en t i al e ffect . C i t ati on t o a sum m ary ord er fil ed on or afte r Jan u ary 1 , 20 0 7 , i s p erm itt ed an d is go v ern ed b y F ed er a l R u le o f A p p ellate P ro ced u re 3 2 .1 a n d th is co u rt’s L o ca l R u le 32. 1. 1. W hen ci t i ng a sum m ary or d er in a d o cu m en t fi l ed w i t h t his c ourt , a part y mu st c i t e ei t her t he Feder al A p p en d i x or an el ect ron i c da t ab ase ( w i t h t h e no t ati on “su m m ary ord er”) . A p arty cit i n g a su m m ary ord er m u st serv e a co p y of

it on an y p a rty n o t rep rese n ted b y co u n sel. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 6 day

of January , two thousand eleve n. th PRES ENT: AMALYA L . KEARSE,

RA L PH K . WI

NT ER, P E T E R W
. H A LL, Circuit Judges
.

______________________________________________ United States of America, Appellee ,

v. 08-0710-c r Fr ank Melve y

J r., also known a s Fra

nk J oseph Melvey , J r. Defendant-

Appellant
.

______________________________________________ FOR APPEL LANT: M A RSH A LL A. M I NT Z , M intz an d O pp e nh e im LL P, New Y ork, NY. FOR APPEL L EE: W I L L I AM P. C AMPOS , A ssi sta nt Unit e d St ate s Attorney (Emily Be rg er, of counsel), for L oretta E. Ly nch, United States Attorne y for Ea stern District of Ne w York, B rookly

n, NY.The district cour t orig inally

imposed a 135-month sentenc e but later grante d Melvey ’s 1 pro se motion to reduc e to his sentence
. 2 Fr ank Melve y

J r. appe als from the judgment of United States District Court for the Easter n District of Ne w York ( Spatt, J .). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , IT I S HEREBY OR DE RE D, AD JU DGED , A ND DE CREED , that the judgment of the district cour t imposed
on Janu ary 11 , 2 00 8 a

nd e nte re d o n F e br

ua ry 4, 20 08 is AF F IRM ED
. On May 24, 2007, Melvey

pled guilty

to possession with int ent to distribute coca ine and fi ft y gra ms o r m or e of

c oc a ineba se in v iol atio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § § 8 41 (a) a nd 84 1(b) (1 )( A) (i ii) (“Count One” ), and posse ssion of a fire arm a s a convic ted fe lon in violation of 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g )(1) and 924(a)(2) (“Count Two” ). On the ba sis of this plea, the district court e ntere d judgme nt ag ainst Melvey and sente nced him princ ipally to 120 months i n prison. Melvey now 1
a pp e a ls f ro m th e jud gme nt. Melvey claims that it was an a

buse of discr etion for the district c ourt to find that his plea of guilty to Count Two was supported by sufficie nt fac ts in that there wa s no fac tual basis for the district court to find that he wa s admitting that he “possessed” a gun for the pur

poses of sec tion 92 2( g )( 1) . B e c a

us e Me lve y

ra ise s th is i ssu e fo r t

hefi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l, w e re vie w i t f

or pla in
err or. United States v. Torrellas , 455 F.3d 96, 103 ( 2d Cir. 2006). Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)( 3) re quires that “[b]efore e nteringjudgme nt on
a guil ty ple a , th e c ourt

mus t de te rm inethat th e reis a fa c tua l ba sis fo r t

he ple a .” Th e ru le is designed to ensurethat “the c onduct to which the de fenda nt admits is i n fac t an offe nse under the statutory provision under whic h he is pleadingguilty .” United States v. Mahe r , 108 F.3d 1513, 1524-25 (2d Cir. 1997).3

Her e, ther e wa s no question that Melvey had pre viously

been c onvicted of a

felony , and he admitted to conduc t that satisfies the possession element of the violation charg ed in Count Two. Unde r sec tion 922(g )(1) , possession of a fir ear m may be ac tual or construc tive. United States v. Gaines , 295 F.3d 293, 300 ( 2d Cir. 2002). To establish construc tive possession, the g overnme nt must show that a defe ndant had “ the power and intention to exercise dominion and control over

an objec t.” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). In his plea colloquy , Melvey admitted that he had suc h dominion and control over the gun:

THE COURT: And you possessed this gun. It was your gun wasn’t it? THE DEF ENDAN T: Your Honor , it wasn’t my gun. TH E CO URT: Who se gun wa s it ? TH E D EF EN DA

NT : It w a s r e g ist e re d to my sis te r who se ho us e it belong s to. THE COURT: The gun was re g istered to your sister? TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Ye s. THE COURT: Mr. Melvey , notwithstanding the f act that this was re g ist e re d to your s ist e r, did you have po sse ssi on

of it? TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Ye s. TH E CO URT: Yo u h a d u se of it? TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Ye s. TH E CO URT: Yo u c ou ld u se it? TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Ye s.
***4 THE COURT: And you lived in that house? TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Ye s.

Be causethere was a

fac tual basis for Me lvey ’s plea on Count Two that he possessed a gun as a c onvicted fe lon, there w as no er ror, much le ss plain error , when the district c ourt enter ed judgme nt on that plea. We have c onsidered a ll of Melvey ’s contentions on this appea l and have found them to be wi tho ut m e ri t. T he jud gme nt o f t he dis tric t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
.
FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk