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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 77 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cr-0 00 55 -MC R-M D-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, vers us CECIL ANTHONY DO RTCH, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- 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 North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 11 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andHUCK, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

Honora ble Paul C. Huck, United States District Court for the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 1 of 20The ke y is su e in th is ap pe al is whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d p la in erro r by con st ru ct iv el y

am en di ng anin di ct m en t t ha t ch arg edpo ss es si on of t wo sp eci fic ki nd s o f fi rearm s, a Tau ru s .4 5 p is to l an d a n Arm in iu s re vo lv er, b y in st ru ct in g t he jury th atitco ul d fi ndth e d efen da ntgu il ty of th e ch arg es if t he go ve rn m en t p ro ve d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t h e p os se ss ed“ a fi rearm .” Cec il Ant ho ny Dortc h app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r be in g afel onin po ss es si on of a fir earm , 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ); p os se ss io n o f m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te , 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 )(D); an d p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm in co nn ect io n wi th a drug tra ffi ck in g o ffen se , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) . Dort chpre se nt s t hr ee ar gu m en ts : (1 ) th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhenitsubm it te d a n u nr ed act edin di ct m en t t ha t co nt ai ne d re fere nc es to sev eral of h is pre vi ou s co nv ic ti on s t o t he jury; (2) th atth e di st ric t co urt co ns tru ct iv el y am en de d t he in di ct m en t wh enitin st ru ct edth e jury th atitco ul d c on vi ctDort ch of t he fir earm ch arg es if i t fo un d t ha t h e p os se ss edan y fir earm in st eadof t he sp eci fic fir earm s n am edin th e in di ct m en t; an d (3 ) th atth e di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enitrefu se d t o a dm itev id en ce o f a jud gm en t of acqui tt al on rel at edst at e ch arg es . All o f Dortc h’s ar gu m en ts lac k m eri t. An y erro r insubm it ti ng th e u nr ed act edin di ct m en t t o t he jury was ha rm le ss ; t he di st ric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err init s i ns tru ct io ns to th e jury; an d Do rtc h’s ac qu it ta l o n st at e ch arg es was i na dm is si bl e h ears ay . W e aff irm Dortc h’s co nv ic ti on s. 2 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 2 of 20I. BACK GROUND

The in di ct m en t ch arg edDort ch with t hr ee o ffen se s. Co un t o ne ch arg edth at Dortc h, “ ha vi ng pre vi ou sl y be enco nv ic te d o f cri m es pu ni sh ab le by a term of im pr is on m en t ex ceed in g o ne y ear, . . . di d kno win gl y po ss es s fi rearm s, tha t i s, a Tauru s, M od el PT45 . .45 cal ib er p is to l an d a n Arm in iu s re vo lv er [t ha t] had pr ev io us ly been tra ns po rte d i n i nt ers ta te an d fo rei gn co m m erce .” Co un t o ne als o al le ge d s ev enof Do rtc h’s p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s: (1) a 19 75 co nv ic ti onfor po ss es si on of h ero in , (2) a 19 84 co nv ic ti on for po ss es si on of m ari

juan a, (3 ) a 1 98 7 co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o s el l, (4 ) a 1 98 7 c on vi ct io n fo r fai lu re t o app ear, (5 ) a 1 98 8 c on vi ct io n fo r es cap e, (6 ) a 1 99 5 c on vi ct io n fo r po ss es si on of c oc ai ne , (6) a 20 01 co nv ic ti on for po ss es si on of c oc ai ne , and(7) a 20 03 co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of c oc ai ne . Cou nttwo ch arg edth atDort ch “ on or ab ou t Ap ril 17 , 20 09 , . . . di d kno win gl y an d i nt en ti on al ly pos se ss with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e . . . andth atth is off en se in vo lv eda m ix tu re an d subs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng a de te ct ab le am ou ntof m araju an a [s ic ]. ” Co un t t hr ee ch arg edth atDort ch “ on or abo utApri l 1 7, 2 00 9, . . . du rin g a ndinrel at io n t o a drug tra ffi ck in g c rime for wh ic h h e m ay be pro se cu te d i n aco urt o f th e Uni te d St at es , th atis , po ss es s wi thin te ntto di st rib ut e m ari juan a, as ch arg edin Co un t

3 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 3 of 20Two o f [the ] In di ct m en t, d idkn owi ng ly use , carry andpo ss es s i n fu rth eran ce

th ereo f, fir earm s, tha t i s, a Tau ru s, M od el PT45 . . 45 cal ib er p is to l an d a n Arm in us rev ol ve r . . . .” At tria l, the di stric t co urt re fu se d t o a dm itin to ev id en ce fi ve of t he fel on y co nv ic ti on s b ecau se th ey were ei th er t oo ol d o r to o p reju di ci al . The d is tri ctco urt al lo wedth e g ov ern m en t t o i nt ro du ce ev id en ce o f th e th ree c on vi ct io ns for po ss es si on of c oc ai ne fro m 19 95 , 20 01 , and20 03 . Dort ch st ip ul at edth athe was a co nv ic te d fe lo n, an d t he go ve rn m en t p res en te d t es ti m on y th atDort ch ha d n otha d hi s ri gh t t o c arry a firea rm res to red . The go ve rn m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e th atth e Po li ce Dep art m en t i n Pen sa co la , Flo rid a, ex ecu te d asea rchwarran t ata ho m e co nt ai ni ng dru gs , to ol s us edfor dru g d is tri bu ti on , andit em s t ha t b el on ge d t o Do rtc h. Aft er the po li ce se cu redth e res id en ce, a dru g d og en te redth e h ou se an d a le rte d s ev eral ti m es . The fro ntbe dr oo m

co nt ai ne d m en ’s clo th in g, a s cal e wed ge d a t t he en d o f th e b ed , a fi re s afe wi th$8 ,27 5 u nd er the be d, s ix bo xe s o f sa nd wich ba gs , a ba g o f m ari juan a wrap pe d i n abl an ke t o n t op of the be d, m ai l ad dr es se d t o Do rtc h, a di gi ta l s cal e in a ch es t o f dr awers , a se co ndba g o f m ari juan a in a dr es se r, a can th atco nt ai ne d c oc ai ne po wde r, a co nt ai ne r of lo os e m ari

juan a o n t op of t he be d, a th irdsca le in a co nt ai ne r, a b ot tl e u se d t o d il ut e co cai ne , cup s fr om W al -Ma rt, a nd 4 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 4 of 20a fo urth sca le . An ag en t wi th th e Dru g En fo rcem en t Ad m in is tra ti on tes ti fie d t ha t

th e qua nt it y

of d ru gs , th e sc al es , andot he r it em s fo un d i n t he fro ntbe dr oo m were co ns is te ntwith d ru g d is tri bu ti on , no t m ere d ru g u se . A fin ge rp rin t an al y st te st ifi edth athe di sc ov ereda fi ng erp rin t t ha t b el on ge d t o Do rtc h o n o ne of t he sc al es .Po li ce o ffi cers tes ti fie d tha t t he y fou ndfir earm s i n t he be dr oo m an d i n o th er lo cat io ns in th e h ou se . One o ffi cer t es ti fie d t ha t h e fo un d t he Taur us pi st ol an d a m ag azi ne with ro un ds in si de a Girl Sco utco ok ie bo x i n t he be dr oo m . Ano th er of fic er t es ti fie d t ha t h e fo un d t he Arm in iu s re vo lv er i n asetof p la st ic dra wers in th e b edro om . An ag en t wi th th e Dep art m en t o f Alc oh ol , Tob acco , andFir earm s, te st ifi edth atth e two fir earm s fo un d i n t he be dr oo m ha d t rav el edin in te rs ta te co m m erce . A crim e sc en e an al y sttes ti fie d t ha t h e swabb edbo th fir earm s fo r DNA, an d acri m e labo rat ory an al y sttes ti fie d t ha t t he re was a 1 i n 8 60 m il li on pr ob ab il it y

th atth e DNA fou ndon on e o f th e g un s fr om th e fro ntbe dr oo m

was n ot fro m Dort ch . Ano th er p ol ic e o ffi cer t es ti fie d t ha t h e co nf is cat eda ri fle fro m

a co m m on areaof t he res id en ce an d arif le fro m th e b acky ardof t he res id en ce. The go ve rn m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e th atDort ch co nduc te d d ru g s al es an d st or eddru gs in a va n t ha t h e p ark edin fro ntof the res id en ce. Leo na rdMi la ne si , on e o f Dortc h’s ac qu ai nt an ces , tes ti fie d t ha t h e wit ne ss eda fri en d b uy po wde r 5 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 5 of 20co cai ne fro m Dort ch . Mil an es i s ta te d t ha t h e h adpe rs on al ly pur ch as edLort ab an d po wde r co cai ne fro m

Dort ch . The p ur ch as es oc curredat the ho us e th atwas t he subjec t o f th e se arch warran t. Mi la ne si tes ti fie d t ha t h e h adpu rch as eddru gs fro m Dortc h fo uror f

iv e ti m es . Dort ch eit he r so ldth e dru gs th ro ug h t he fen ce o r fro m a va n p ark edin fro ntof t he res id en ce. Mi la ne si als o t es ti fie d tha t h e h adm ad e a co nt ro ll edbu y

fro m Dort ch forth e p ol ic e. A po li ce o ffi cer t es ti fie d tha t h e h ad fo un d m ari

juan a an d c oc ai ne ina whi te va n i n fr on t o f th e res id en ce tha t was reg is te redto an d o wne d b y Dort ch . The go ve rn m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e th atDort ch li ve d i n t he be dr oo m wher e th e two ha nd gu ns , dru gs , anddru g d is tri bu ti on m at eri al s wer e fo un d. Aft er Dortc h was arre st ed , he a dm it te d t o Ag en t Al le n Dav is of t he Depa rtment o f Alco ho l, To ba cco , andFir earm s t ha t h e li ve d i n t he be dr oo m . Seli naBel l, Dortc h’s s is te r, te st ifi edth atth e res id en ce h adbe enown edby the ir l at e m ot he r. Bel l t es ti fie d t ha t the fir stflo orfro ntbe dr oo m be lo ng edto Dort ch , andsh e st at ed th atno on e u se d t he fro ntbe dr oo m ex cep t Do rtc h a ndEbo ny Norri s, wh om Bel l de sc rib edas Do rtc h’s “ la dy frien d.” Bel l t es ti fie d t ha t al l o f th e m en ’s clo th in g i n th e ro om be lo ng edto Dort ch . Dortc h n ei th er t es ti fie d n orpre se nt edan y ev id en ce i n h is de fen se . Alt ho ug h Do rtc h a tt em

pt edto in tro du ce ev id en ce tha t h e h adbe enacqui tt edof

6 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 6 of 20st at e ch arg es rel at edto th e ex ecu ti on of t he sea rch warran t, the di st ric t co urt ru le d

th atth e jud gm en ts of a cqui tt al were i na dm is si bl e. The di stric t co urt h el d ach arg e co nf eren ce. The go ve rn m en t s ub m it te d a m em or an du m

to th e d is tri ctco urt re ga rd in g p ro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io ns inwhi ch it reco m m en de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt g iv e to th e jury the pa tt ern jury in st ru ct io ns fo r eac h o f th e ch arg es witho utm od ifi cat io n. Aft er re vi ewin g t he jury in st ru ct io ns , Dort ch m ad e n o o bjec ti on . The d is tri ctco urt as ke d Do rtc h i f he wou ldne edto rev ie w th e in st ru ct io ns ag ai n wi th th e d is tri ctco urt. Do rtc h s ta te d,

“ I do n’t thi nkso , You r Hon or .” Whe n t he di st ric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury abo utth e fi rearm s ch arg es , itdi d no t m en ti on a sp eci fic ki ndof f ire arm . The d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct edth e jury as fo ll ows ab ou t the ch arg e o f po ss es si on of age ne ric fir earm :

It’s aFed eral cri m e fo r an y on e who ha s b een co nv ic te d o f a fel on y of fen se to po ss es s a f

ire arm in or a ffec ti ng in te rs ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce . The Defen da ntcanbe fou ndgu il ty of th is cri m e o nl y if a ll th e fo ll owi ng fact s ar e p ro ve d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t: (1 ) th e Defen da ntkn owi ng ly pos se ss eda fi rearm in or a ffec ti ng in te rs ta te or f

or ei gn co m

m erce ; an d (2 ) be fo re p os se ss in g t he fir earm , th e Defen da ntha d b eenco nv ic te d of a fel on y ; tha t i s, a c rime pun is habl e b y im pr is on m en t fo r m or e th anon e y ear.

7 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 7 of 20Andth e d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct edth e jury as fo ll ows ab ou t t he ch arg e o f

po ss es si on of age ne ric fir earm in furth eran ce o f drug tra ffi ck in g: It’s asep arat e Fed eral cri m e fo r an y on e to us e a fi rearm in rel at io n t o, carry a fi rearm du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o, o r po ss es s a f ire arm in fu rth eran ce o f a dru g- tra ffi ck in g c rime. The Defen da ntcanbe fou ndgu il ty of th is cri m e o nl y if a ll th e fo ll owi ng fact s ar e p ro ve d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t: (1 ) th e Defen da ntco m

m it te d t he dru g- tra ffi ck in g c rime char ge d i n Co un t two o f th e in di ct m en t; (2 ) th e Defen da ntkn owi ng ly use d, ca rri ed , or p os se ss eda fi rearm ; an d (3 ) th e Defen da ntus edor c arri edth e fi rearm du rin g andin rel at io n t o, orpo ss es se d the fir earm

in furth eran ce o f th e dru g- tra ffi ck in g c rime. The di stric t co urt al so ga ve sev eral ge ne ral in st ru ct io ns , anditin st ru ct edth e jury that“ [t]he in di ct m en t o r fo rm al ch arg e ag ai ns t an y Defen da ntis no t ev id en ce of gu il t. In de ed , eve ry

Defen da ntis pre su m edby the law t o b e in no cen t.” Th e di st ric t co urt al so in st ru ct edth e jury as fo ll ows ab ou t t he pe rm is si bl e u se s o f ev id en ce o f pr io r ba d a ct s, u nd er Fe de ral Ru le Evi de nc e 4 04 (b ). The di stric t co urt al so pro vi de d awrit te n c op y of t he in st ru ct io ns to th e jury fo r us e dur in g the ir d el ib erat io n, an d t he di st ric t co urt p ro vi de d aco py of th e un red act edin di ct m en t t o the jury. The d is tri ctco urt was un aware th atth e co py of th e in di ct m en t tha t i t p ro vi de d t o t he jury was un red act edan d c on ta in edrefe ren ces 8 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 8 of 20to th e fi ve pre vi ou s fe lo ny con vi ct io ns th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adrul ed

in adm is si bl e. One o f th os e fel on y co nv ic ti on s was a 19 87 co nv ic ti on for po ss es si on of m ari

juan a wit h i nt en t t o s el l t ha t was vi rtu al ly ide nt ic al to co un t t wo of th e in di ctm en t. The jury co nv ic te d Do rtc h o n a ll th ree c ou nt s. So on aft er the jury returne d it s v erd ic t, the cle rkof c ou rt e nt ereda co py of th e jury ins tru ct io ns in to th e rec or d. Afte r th e g ov ern m en t n ot ifi edth e d is tri ctco urt t ha t t he un red act edco py of th e in di ct m en t h adbe enpro vi de d t o t he jury, Dort ch fil eda pr o s e “ m ot io n fo r m is tri al ,” in whi chhe arg ue d t ha t h is subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts ha d b een pre jud ic ed . The go ve rn m en t re sp on de d t ha t h is subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts were u na ffec te d b ecau se ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e es tabl is he d h is gu il t attri al . The di stric t co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t, b ecau se of th e li m it in g i ns tru ct io ns an d t he ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f gu il t, an y erro r th at m ig htha ve oc curredha d n o s ub st an ti al in flu en ce o n t he ou tc om e o f th e tr ia l. The di st ric t co urt s en te nc edDort ch to 15 5 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, an d Do rtc h t im el y ap pe al ed . II . STANDARDS OF REVIEW Sev eral st an da rd s o f rev ie w go ve rnth is ap pe al . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b as edon th e subm is si on of e xtrin si c m at eri al to th e jury for 9 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 9 of 20ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Sie ge lm an , 64 0 F .3d11 59 , 11 84 (11 th Cir .

20 11 ). If anerro r was no t p res erv ed , we rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Lejard e-Ra da , 31 9 F .3d12 88 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). W e rev ie w th e ev id en ti ary ru li ng s o f th e d is tri ctco urt fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Aug us ti n, 6 61 F.3 d 1 10 5, 1 12 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . II I. DI SCUSSI ON W e d iv id e o urdi sc us si on in to th ree p art s. Fi rs t, we ad dr es s Do rtc h’s arg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enitde ni edhi s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l ab ou t the un red act edin di ct m en t. Sec on d, we ad dr es s Do rtc h’s arg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d ape r se rev ers ib le erro r by co ns tru ct iv el y

am en di ng hi s i nd ic tm en t. Thi rd , we add res s Do rtc h’s ar gu m en t t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enitpre ve nt edDort ch fro m in tro du ci ng jud gm en ts of a cqui tt al fro m rel at edst at e ch arg es . A. The Distri ct

Co ur t Di d N

ot Abu se Its Dis cr et io n When It Den ie d Do rt ch ’s Mot io n f or a Ne w Tr ia l. Dortc h a rg ue s t ha t h e su ffer edsubs ta nt ia l p reju di ce wh enth e d is tri ctco urt subm it te d t o t he jury anun red act edco py of th e in di ct m en t t ha t re fere nc edsev eral of hi s p rev io us ly und is cl os edfel on y co nv ic ti on s. Th e g ov ern m en t co nc ed es th at th e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itsubm it te d the un red act edco py of th e in di ct m en t t o

10 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 10 of 20th e jury, butco nt en ds th atth e err orwas h arm le ss be cau se th ere was ov erwh el m in g

ev id en ce o f Dortc h’s g ui ltan d t he di st ric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t t he in di ct m en t was no t ev id en ce o f Dortc h’s g ui lt .

“ Whe n ju ro rs co ns id er ex tri ns ic ev id en ce, a n ew tr ia l i s re qu ire d i f th e ev id en ce p os es a reas on ab le po ss ib il it y of p reju di ce t o t he de fen da nt .” Uni te d St at es v. Pe rk in s, 7 48 F.2d15 19 , 15 33 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). “ A def en da ntwho al le ge s d en ia l o f th is rig htres ul ti ng fro m juro r ex po su re t o e xt ran eo us in fo rm at io n ha s t he bu rd enof m ak in g aco lo rab le sh owi ng th atth e ex po su re h as , infact , oc cu rred .” Sie ge lm an , 64 0 F .3dat 1 18 2. “ If the de fen da ntdo es so , pre jud ic e to th e d efen da ntis pre su m edan d t he bu rd ensh ift s t o t he go ve rn m en t t o s ho w ‘ th at th e juro rs ’ co ns id erat io n o f ex tri ns ic ev id en ce was ha rm le ss to th e d efen da nt .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g R emm er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 47 U.S. 22 7, 7 4 S . Ct. 4 50 (19 54 )). “ If the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de s the ex po su re t o t he ex tri ns ic ev id en ce was ha rm le ss to th e de fen da nt , on ap pe al , we rev ie w th is co nc lu si on foranab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Id.

“ Indo in g s o, we l oo k a t al l the cir cu m st an ces an d we c on si de r: ( 1) th e n atur e o f th e ex tri ns ic ev id en ce; (2) th e m an ne r in whi ch itreac he d t he jury; (3) th e fac tu al fin di ng s i n t he di stric t co urt an d t he m an ne r of th e co urt’s i nqui ry

in to th e juro r is su es ; an d, (4 ) th e st ren gth o f th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se .” Id . The go ve rn m en t p res en te d a n o ve rwh el m in g c as e th atDort ch po ss es se d a 11 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 11 of 20fir earm

as aco nv ic te d fe lo n. Do rtc h s ti pu la te d t ha t h e was a co nv ic te d fe lo n a nd th e g ov ern m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e th atth e h an dg un s fo un d i n t he fro ntbe dr oo m ha d t rav el edinin te rs ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce . The h an dg un s wer e fo un d i n a ro om th atco nt ai ne d Do rtc h’s cl ot he s an d m ai l ad dr es se d t o h im . One o f th e ha nd gu ns ha d Do rtc h’s DNA on it , anda DNA exp erttes ti fie d t ha t t he DNA m at ch edDort ch ’s to a 1 i n 8 60 m il li on pro babi li ty. Dort ch ’s si st er t es ti fie d t ha t Dortc h l iv edin th e b edro om , andDort chto lda DEA agen t t ha t h e li ve d i n t he ro om . In the li gh t o f th e co m pe ll in g p hysic al DNA evi de nc e, th e te st im on y of Dortc h’s s is te r, an d Do rtc h’s ad m is si onth athe li ve d i n t he roo m , th e g ov ern m en t pr es en te d a n o ve rwh el m in g c as e th atDort ch po ss es se d ahand gu n n ear t he da te al le ge d i n t he in di ct m en t. The go ve rn m en t al so pre se nt eda st ro ng cas e th atDort chpo ss es se d m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te it . Dort ch adm it te d t ha t h e li ve d i n t he roo m whe re the m ari

juan a was fou nd , andhi s s is te r te st ifi edth athe li ve d i n t he roo m . His clo th es an d m ai l ad dr es se d t o h im were fo un d i n t he roo m . Item s co ns is te nt wit h d ru g d is tri bu ti on , su ch as s an dwi ch ba gs an d t wo s cal es , were fo un d i n t he ro om . One o f th e sc al es ha d Do rtc h’s fi ng er p rin t o n i t. Mi lane si tes ti fie d t ha t h e pu rch as edLort ab an d c oc ai ne fro m Dort chat t he res id en ce, an d l aw en fo rcem en t of fic ers fou ndm ari

juan a an d c oc ai ne in Dort ch ’s tru ck , whi ch was p ark edin fro nt 12 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 12 of 20of

th e res id en ce. Inad di ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct edth e jury bo th ora ll y an d i n wri ti ng th atth e in di ct m en t, wh ic h a ll eg edDort ch ’s fiv e p rev io us ly excl ud edco nv ic ti on s, was no t ev id en ce tha t co ul d b e co ns id eredto de te rm in e Dortc h’s g ui lt . W e pr es um e th atth e jury fol lo wedth es e in stru ct io ns . See Un it edSta te s v . Braze l, 1 02 F.3 d 1 12 0, 1 14 5 (1 1t h C ir.1 99 7) . In the li gh t o f th e wri tt enan d o ral in stru ct io ns by the di st ric t co urt t o t he jury th atth e in di ct m en t was no t ev id en ce o f gu il t an d th e st ren gt h o f th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t Do rtc h, an y erro r in th e subm is si on of the un red act edin di ct m en t t o the jury was harm le ss . Dortc h’s re li an ce o n Un it edSta te s v . Col em an , 55 2 F .3d85 3 (D.C . Cir . 20 09 ), is un av ai li ng . In tha t d eci si on , th e Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a Ci rcu itrul edth ata de fen da ntco nv ic te d o f be in g afel on in po ss es si on of afir earm est ab li sh edpl ai n erro r whe re the di st ric t co urt re adto th e jury ven ire du rin g v oi r di re an un red act ed in di ct m en t tha t co nt ai ne d t he de fen da nt ’s pre vi ou s co nv ic ti on forass au ltwith a de ad ly w eap on , th e d efen da ntha d o ffer edto st ip ul at e th athe was aco nv ic te d fel on , andth e ev id en ce ag ai ns t the de fen da ntwas wea k. As th e Dis tri ctof Co lu m bi a Ci rcu itex pl ai ne d, t he di sp ut e in th e ev id en ce re ga rd in g p os se ss io n bo il eddo wn t o t he wordof t he de fen da ntag ai ns t t he wordof apo li ce o ffi cer wh o ha d c hang edhi s s to ry

sev eral ti m es . In co nt ras t wi th th e weakcas e ag ai ns t t he

13 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 13 of 20de fen da ntin Co le m an , th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t Do rtc h was st ro ng .

B. Even i f We Assu me th at

th e Dis tr ic t Co ur t Co ns tr uc ti vel y Amen de d the In di ctmen t, Do rt ch Ca nn ot Estab lish th at

th e Err or

W as Pla in . The Fif th Am en dm en t t o the Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n p ro vi de s t ha t “ [n ]o pe rs on sh al l b e h el d t o a ns wer fo r a cap it al , or o th erwi se in fam ou s cr im e, un le ss on a pr es en tm en t o r in di ct m en t o f a Gran d J ury . . . .” A fun da m en ta l p rin ci pl e st em m in g fr om

th e Fi fth Am en dm en t i s t ha t a d efen da ntcanbe co nv ic te d o nl y for a cri m e ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t. Un it edSta te s v . Fig ue ro a, 66 6 F .2d13 75 , 13 79 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) . An in di ct m en t i s co ns tru ct iv el y am en de d “ whe n t he ess en ti al el em en ts of t he off

en se co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ct m en t ar e al te redto bro ad enth e po ss ib le ba se s fo r co nv ic ti on be y on d wh atis co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ct m en t.” Un it ed St at es v. Kel le r, 91 6 F .2d62 8, 6 34 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Dortc h a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt co ns tru ct iv el y am en de d h is in di ct m en t be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto in st ru ctth e jury tha t i t co ul d c on vi ctDort ch of th e ch arg es of p os se ss io n o nl y if i t fo un d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t Do rtc h po ss es se d t he two sp eci fic fir earm s d es cri be d i n c ou nt s o ne an d t wo o f th e in di ct m en t. The in di ct m en t ch arg edDort ch with p os se ss in g “ fir earm s, tha t i s, a Tauru s, M od el pT4 5. .4 5 c al ib er p is to l an d a n Arm in iu s re vo lv er,” an d a t t ria l t he go ve rn m en t i nt ro du cedev id en ce ab ou t fo urfir earm s, the two ha nd gu ns fou ndin

14 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 14 of 20th e fro ntbe dr oo m an d t he two rif

le s fo un d e ls ewh ere i n t he res id en ce. Bu t t he di st ric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t i t co ul d c on vi ctDort ch if i t fo un d t ha t h e po ss es se d “ a fi rearm .” Dort ch arg ue s t ha t a c on stru ct iv e am en dm en t am ou nt s t o a pe r se rev ers ib le erro r. The go ve rn m en t ar gu es th atno co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t o ccu rred , andth at Dortc h i nv it edany

erro r or , alt ern at iv el y , th atth ere was no pl ai n e rro r. The go ve rn m en t m ai nt ai ns th at , un de r rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r, an y erro r di d n otaffe ct Dortc h’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s n orser io us ly affectth e fai rn es s, i nt eg rity , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f hi s ju di ci al pro ceed in gs . Dortc h d idno t i nv it e an y erro r co nc ern in g t he jury in st ru ct io ns . “ [W] he n a pa rty agre es with aco urt’s p ro po se d i ns tru ct io ns , th e d oc tri ne of i nv it ederro r ap pl ie s, m ean in g t ha t re vi ew is waiv edev enif p la in erro r wou ldres ul t.” Un it ed St at es v. Fra nk , 59 9 F .3d12 21 , 12 40 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The p art ie s d o n otdi sp ut e th atDort ch di d n otob

ject t o t he pro po se d jury

in st ru ct io ns , bu t fa il in g t o o bjec t do es no t t rig ge r th e d oc tri ne of i nv it ederro r. The d is tri ctco urt as ke d Do rtc h i f he wou ldne edto rev ie w th e in st ru ct io ns ag ai n wi th th e d is tri ctco urt ata la te r ti m e, an d Do rtc h s ta te d, “ I do n’t thi nkso , You r Hon or .” Inth e li gh t o f Dortc h’s am bi gu ou s s ta te m en t t o t he di st ric t co urt, the do ctrin e o f in vi te d e rro r do es no t ap pl y . W e in st eadrev ie w forpl ai n e rro r. 15 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 15 of 20W e n eedno t ad dr es s wh ethe r a co ns tru ct iv e am en dm en t am ou nt s t o ape r se

rev ers ib le erro r whe n t he de fen da ntfai ls to ob ject a t t ria l b ecau se , eve n i f we as su m e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erred , th e erro r was no t p la in . Und er the pl ai n- erro r st an da rd , we wil l n otco rrec t an erro r rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal un le ss th ere i s anerro r, th atis pl ai n, t ha t af fect s s ub st an ti al rig ht s, an d s eri ou sl y affe ct s th e fai rn es s, i nt eg rity , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Uni te d S ta te s v. Lan gf or d, 6 47 F.3d13 09 , 13 25 n.1 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . “ Fo r a p la in erro r to ha ve oc cu rred , th e err orm

us t b e o ne th atis ob vi ou s an d i s cl ear u nd er cu rren t l aw.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Carru th , 52 8 F .3d84 5, 8 46 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). An err oris no t ob vi ou s an d c le ar wh en“ [n ]o Sup rem e Co urt d eci si on squa rel y supp orts ” th e de fen da nt ’s arg um en t, “ ot he r ci rcu it s . . . are s pl it ” reg ard in g t he res ol ut io n o f th e de fen da nt ’s arg um en t, (3 ) “ we ha ve ne ve r res ol ve d t he is su e.” See Uni te d S ta te s v. Hu m ph rey, 16 4 F .3d58 5, 5 88 (11 thCir . 19 99 ). No Supr em e Co urt p rece de ntor p rece de ntof t hi s C ou rt s qu arel y supp orts Dortc h’s ar gu m en t. Do rtc h fa il s t o c it e an y co nt ro ll in g aut ho rit y

th ata di st ric t co urt co ns tru ct iv el y

am en ds anin di ct m en t t ha t al le ge s p os se ss io n o f pa rti cu la r fir earm s b y

in st ru ct in g t he jury th atitm ay co nv ic t fo r po ss es si on of a ny firea rm . Andou r si st er ci rcu it s ar e sp li t re ga rd in g wh ethe r a d is tri ctco urt co ns tru ct iv el y am en ds anin di ct m en t i n thi s ci rcu m st an ce. InUni te d S ta te s v . Leich tm an , th e 16 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 16 of 20Sev en th Cir cu itrul edth atanin di ct m en t t ha t ch arg edth e d efen da ntwith

“ kn owi ng ly us[ in g] an d c arry[in g] a fir earm : t o wi t, a M os sb erg rif le ” was co ns tru ct iv el y

am en de d wh enth e d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t i t co ul d co nv ic t t he de fen da ntif i t fo un d t ha t h e kno win gl y us ed“ a fi rearm ,” 94 8 F .2d 37 0, 3 79 (7t h C ir. 1 99 1) (al te rat io ns ad de d) , bu t atlea stth ree o th er ci rcu it s h av e di sa gr eedwith t he Sev en th Cir cu it . For e xa m pl e, in Uni te d S ta te s v . McIn to sh , th e Eig htCir cu itrul edth atanin di ct m en t t ha t ch arg edth e d efen dantwith po ss es si ng an“ Arm in iu s West ern Sta r .35 7 m ag nu m rev ol ve r” was no t co ns tru ct iv el y

am en de d wh enth e d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t i t co ul d co nv ic t o n t he ba si s o f an y fir earm be cau se “ th e sp eci fic type o f fi rearm is no t an el em en t o f th e o ffen se .” 23 F.3d14 54 , 14 57 (8th C ir. 1 99 4) . In Un it edSta te s v . Ham il to n, t he Tent h C irc ui t ru le d t ha t “ th e g ov ern m en t m erel y ha d t o p ro du ce ev id en ce attri al fro m

whi ch th e jury cou ldfin d b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t Defen da ntha d u se d afir earm du rin g t he rob be ry

an d was no t re qu ire d t o p ro ve th atth e fi rearm

was a.38 cal ib er re vo lv er.” 9 92 F.2d11 26 , 11 30 (10 th Cir . 19 93 ). Andin Uni te d S ta te s v . Rob is on , th e Si xt h C irc ui t ru le d t ha t “ th e sp eci fic type o f fir earm us edor p os se ss edby the co ns pi rat oris no t aness en ti al ele m en t o f th e cri m e.” 9 04 F.2d36 5, 3 69 (6t h C ir. 1 99 0) . Co nt rary to t he arg um en t o f th e g ov ern m en t, o urde ci si onin Uni te d S ta te s 17 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 17 of 20v. Will ia m s, 3 34 F.3d12 28 , 12 31 –3 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) , do es no t re so lv e th is is su e.

Ourde ci si on in W il li am s was li m it edto th e u nd erl y in g fa ct s o f th atap pe al : t he de fen da ntarg ue d t ha t h is sen te nc e co ul d n otbe en ha nc edfordi sc ha rg in g a fir earm th atwas n otde sc rib edin th e in di ct m en t. The de fen dantwas c ha rg edwith vi ol at in g s ect io n 9 24 (c)( 1) (A) whe n h e u se d o r carrie d “ a fi rearm , th atis a ha nd gu n” du rin g t he co m m is si on of arob be ry

of acred itun io n a s wel l as

“ ai d[ in g] an d abe t[t in g] th e u si ng an d c arrying of afir earm , th atis , a ha nd gu n.” Id . at 1 23 1. Th e d efen dantwas c on vi ct edan d the di st ric t co urt ap pl ie d t he te n- y ear m an da to ry

m in im um fou ndin sec ti on 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i ii ), whi ch st at es th at if “ th e fi rearm

is di sc ha rg ed ” dur in g t he un de rlyin g c rime, the de fen da ntm us t b e se nt en cedto no t l es s t ha n t eny ears . The d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d t he ten -y ear m an da to ry

m in im um be cau se on e o f th e acc om pl ic es of t he de fen dantdi sc ha rg ed anAK-47 du rin g t he rob be ry . Alth ou gh th e d efen da ntdi d n otch al le ng e h is co nv ic ti on on ap pe al , he c ha ll en ge d h is sen te nc e o n the gro un d t ha t t he in di ct m en t was fat al ly flawedforno t m en ti on in g t he AK-47 . W e ru le d t ha t t he in cl us io n o f th e te rm “ a h an dg un ” was “ m ere s ur pl us ag e” b ecau se “ [t]he Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt [h ad ] rece nt ly m ad e cl ear [i n Harris v. Un it edSta te s, 5 36 U.S. 54 5, 12 2 S . Ct. 2 40 6 (2 00 2) ] th at18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A) d oe s n otsp eci fy ele m en ts of a cri m e whi ch m

us t b e ch arg edin anin di ct m en t.” Id . Sect io n 9 24 (c)( 1) (A) m ak es 18 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 18 of 20ita cri m e to po ss es s a f ire arm in furth eran ce o f a cri m e o f vi ol en ce o r a dru g tra ffi ck in g c rime. The ele m en ts of t ha t cr im e are st at edin th e o pe ni ng pa rag rap h of th e st atut e an d m

us t b e al le ge d i n a n i nd ic tm en t, und er the Fif thAm en dm en t, fo r th e g ov ern m en t t o s ecu re a co nv ic ti on . Becau se th e Supr em e Co urt ru le d i n Harri s t ha t b ran di sh in g a nddi sc ha rg in g a re s en te nc in g e le m en ts th atdo no t n eed to be all eg edinth e in di ct m en t, the di st ric t co urt co ul d e nh an ce the sen te nc e be cau se a fi rearm

ot he r th anth e o ne all eg edin th e in di ct m en t was di sc ha rg ed du rin g acri m e o f vi ol en ce o r a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e. W e ex pr es se d n o o pi ni on in W il li am s wh ethe r a d is tri ctco urt co ns tru ct iv el y am en ds anin di ct m en t i nv ol vi ng ch arg es of p os se ss io n o f fi rearm s wh enth e in di ct m en t d es cri be s p art ic ul ar fir earm s, b utth e d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct s t he jury th atitm ay co nv ic te d b as edon ev id en ce o f po ss es si on of a ny firea rm . Inth e ab se nc e o f an y

co nt ro ll in g p rece de ntab ou t t hi s i ss ue , “ we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s al le ge d e rro r is no t ‘ob vi ou s’ or ‘cle ar u nd er cu rren t l aw.’” Hum ph rey, 16 4 F .3dat 5 88 . “ W it ho uta ‘pla in ’ erro r, we la ckau th or it y to rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt.” Id . (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Olan o, 5 07 U.S. 72 5, 7 34 , 11 3 S . Ct . 17 70 , 17 77 (19 93 ). Dort ch ’s arg um en t fa il s.

C. Dor tc h’

s Ju dgmen t o

f Acq ui ttal

wa s In ad mis si bl e. Dortc h a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enitrul edth at 19 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 19 of 20Dortc h was no t al lo wedto in tro du ce ev id en ce tha t h e was acqui tt edof s ta te

ch arg es bro ug htag ai ns t h im in co nn ect io n wi th Mi la ne si ’s con tro ll edpu rch as e o f Lort ab s fr om

Dort ch . Dort chreas on s tha t b ecau se th e g ov ern m en t i nt ro du ced ev id en ce re la ti ng to th e co nt ro ll edpu rch as e, he sh ou ldha ve be enpe rm it te d t o in tro du ce ev id en ce tha t h e was acqui tt edof c ha rg es ba se d o n t ha t co nduc t. We di sa gr ee.

“ Ju dg m en ts of a cqui tt al are h ears ay .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Irv in , 78 7 F .2d15 06 , 15 16 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). “ Unl ik e jud gm en ts of c on vi ct io n, wh ic h m ay be adm it te d un de r Ru le 80 3( 22 ) of

th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e fo r so m e p ur po se s, an d u se d fo r im pe ach m en t u nd er Ru le 60 9, ju dg m en ts of a cqui tt al are n otco ve redby an ex cep ti on to th e ru le ag ai ns t ad m is si on of h ears ay .” Id. at15 16 –1 7 (c it in g F ed . R. Evi d. 8 01 & 8 02 ). Obv io us ly, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n whe n i t ex cl ud edin adm is si bl e ev id en ce.
IV. CONCLUSI ON W e AFFIRM Dort ch ’s con vi ct io ns .

20 Case: 10-14772 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 20 of 20