FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT DEC 18, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10619 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 2 0 2 6 5 - CR- A SG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J A M E S F R A N K L I N M C C O Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 18, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J a m e s F r a nkl i n M c C oy appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd 264- m onth s e nt e nc e f or2

pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m by a c onvi c t e d f

e l on i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th b e lo w , w e a f

f ir m . I . B AC KG RO UN D O n A pr i l 24, 2006, appr oxi m a t e l y t e n M i a m i pol i c e of f i c e r s w e ntt o 415 N W 9th S tr e e t , A pa r tm e nt9 ( “ A pa r tm e nt9” ) t o e xe c ut e a f e l ony a rr e s tw a rr a ntf

or A n d rea M cW h o rt er, w h o w as k n o w n t o carry w eap o n s an d w as a su sp ecti n atl east 3 m u r d e r s . M ia m i P o lic e D e te c tiv e W a y n e T illm a n r e c e iv e d a n a n o n y m o u s tip thatM cW ho rt erhad exi t ed a c om pactbei ge car a nd ent er ed A partm ent9. B ef ore the offi ce rs po l i ce kn ocked o n the do or, M cC oy, w ho w as kn ow n t o the offi ce rs as a fel o n , ap p eared i n th e d o o rw ay. A s M cC o y w as m o v i n g o u to f th e d o o rw ay, D et ec t i ve S uare z s aw a c hrom e r evol ver l yi ng on the fl oo r i n the apartm entnear the c ouc h a nd y e l l e d “ gun. ” A r ound the t i m e tha tM c C oy ope ne d the doort o the apartm ent , T i l l m an sa w a bei ge ca r l ea vi ng ata hi gh ra t e of s peed, bu the t es t i fi ed thathe di d n ottry t o st op the vehi cl e bec ause S uare z had j ustye l l ed “ gu n. ” P ol i c e ha ndc uf

f e d M c C oy a nd pa tt e d hi m dow n f orw e apons . D ur i ng the pat -dow n, po l i ce foun d k ey s t o the apartm enti n M cC oy’ s pocket s. T he offi ce rs t e s t i f i e d tha tthe y e nt e r e d the apa r tm e ntt o m a ke s ur e tha tne i the rM c W hor t e rnor anyone el se w as i nsi de. A ft erthe offi ce rs w er e i nsi de, M cC oy t ol d an o ff i ce r that no on e w as i nsi de the apartm ent . O nce the offi ce rs cl ea re d the apartm ent , they3

exi t ed and o bt ai ned a se ar ch w arra nt . P ursuantt o thatse ar ch w arra nt , po l i ce r e c o v e r e d th e f

ir e a r m a lo n g w ith c r a c k c o c a in e , m a r iju a n a , a n d d ru g p a r ap h e rn a lia . B ef ore tri al , M cC oy m ov ed t o sup pres s the evi dence thatthe offi ce rs ob t ai ned from the pat -dow n and se ar ch. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge re com m ended that M c C o y ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s b e d e n ie d . T h e m a g is tr a te f o u n d th a t, p u r s u a n t to M a r y la n d v . B u ie , 4 9 4 U .S . 3 2 5 , 3 2 7 , 1 1 0 S . C t. 1 0 9 3 , 1 0 8 L . E d . 2 d 2 7 6 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , a p r o te c tiv e s w e e p w a s p e r m is s ib le b e c a u s e M c C o y w a s la w f u lly a rr e s te d w ith in m in u tes o f th e s ea rc h . T h e d istrict co u rt af firm ed th e r ep o rt an d d en ied M cC o y’s m o t i o n t o su p p ress. A ttr i a l , T i l l m a n t e s t i f

i e d tha tM c C oy w a s nota l e s s e e of the apa r tm e nt , a nd the pol i c e di d notf

i nd a ny of

M c C oy ’ s c l othe s i n the apa r tm e nt . P ol i c e di d f i nd, ho w ever , a l ett erthatw as po stm arked O ct ob er20 05 and add re ss ed t o M cC oy at A p a r tm e n t 9 . S u a r e z a ls o id e n tif ie d c o p ie s o f

W e s te rn U n io n w ir e tr a n s f e rr e c e ip ts f ound i n a ki t c he n dr a w e ri n w hi c h M c C oy w a s l i s t e d a s the tr a ns f e r or . T he M a in te n a n c e M a n a g e rf o rth e b u ild in g te s tif

ie d th a t M c C o y liv e d a t A p a r tm e n t 9 f o rab o u t a y e a ra n d a h a lf . M cC oy st i pu l at ed thathe w as a c on vi ct ed fe l on and thatthe chrom e r evol ver f ound ne a rthe c ouc h ha d tr a ve l e d i n i nt e r s t a t e a nd f or e i gn c om m e r c e . M c C oy t es t i fi ed thathe l i ved w i th h i s m other a nd si st er , bu tthatM cW ho rt erhad al l ow edIn the five- count superc edingindictment, McC o y wa s al s o charg ed with possession of a 1 firea rm in furtheranceof a dr

ugtraff ickingcrime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)(A)(i) (Count II), and thre e c ountsof po sse ssi on with int e nt to dist ribute a c ontroll e d sub sta

nc e , 21 U.S. C. § 84 1( a)( 1) (C ounts III , IV, V). Thejury

was una ble t o reach a verdict on Counts II -V, a nd the district court de clared a mistrial on those counts. After McCoy was sentenced for possession of a fire arm by

a convic ted felon, the g overnment dismi ssed Counts I I -V. 4 hi m t o res ton the couch i n A partm ent9 o n the day of the arre stbecause he had spentthe previ ou s ni gh ti n the ho spi t al . A ft erre st i ng for abo utforty- fi ve m i nu t es to a n h o u r , M c C o y s a y s h e g o t u p , o p e n e d th e d o o r , a n d f o u n d th e p o lic e o u ts id e . H e c la im s , h o w e v e r , th a t h e d id n o t s e e a g u n w h ile h e w a s in th e ap a r tm e n t. M c Co y e x p l a i n e d th a tth e l e tt e rth a tw a s f o u n d i n s i d e A p a r tme n t9 c a me f r o m a pr i s one rf

r i e nd w ho us e d t o l i ve i n the s a m e bui l di ng, a nd “ he pr obabl y f i gur e d out th a t . . . [ M c C o y ] m ig h t g e t th a t le tte rf r o m , f r o m [ M c C o y ’s f

r ie n d ].” A c c o r d in g to M c C oy , pol i c e f

ound the W e s t e rn U ni on r e c e i pt s i n hi s truc k w he r e M c C oy ke pt th e m . A f t e rthe de f

e ns e r e s t e d, M c C oy f

a i l e d t o r e a s s e r thi s m ot i on f ora j udgm e nt o f acq u i tt al an d th e j u ry fo u n d M cC o y g u i l ty o f p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a c onvi c t e d f

e l on. I n the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) , the pr oba t i on 1 o f f ic e rc la s s if

ie d M c C o y a s a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r im in a l u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) . B a s e d on a t ot a l of

f e ns e l e ve l of

34 a nd a c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of V I , the g u id e lin e im p r is o n m e n t r a n g e w a s 2 6 2 to 3 2 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. M c C o y d id n o t o b je c t to th e f

in d in g s in th e P S I .5

A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , M cC oy obj ec t ed t o b ei ng cl as si fi ed as an arm ed ca re ercr i m i nal . H e a dm i tt ed, ho w ever , thathe had b ee n “ conv i ct ed of [1] batt ery o n a la w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r , r e s is tin g w ith v io le n c e , [ 2 ] f le e in g a n d a tte m p tin g to el ud e duri ng a hi gh -s peed chase [, ] and [3] aggravat ed as saul ton a pol i ce offi ce r. ” T he di s tr i c tc our tde t e r m i ne d tha tM c C oy w a s a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l a nd im p o s e d a s e n te n c e o f

2 6 4 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. O n ap p e a l, M c C o y a r g u e s th a t: ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m ot i on t o s uppr e s s ; ( 2) the e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor thi s c onvi c t i on; a nd ( 3 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in c la s s if y in g h im a s a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r im in a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S up pres si on of the F i re arm M c C o y f ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s uppr e s s the f

i r e a r m be c a us e e xi ge ntc i r c um s t a nc e s di d note xi s tt o j us t i f y the of f i c e r s ’ pr ot e c t i ve s w e e p of A pa r tm e nt9. I n r e vi e w i ng a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s , w e r e vi e w f i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr ora nd the appl i c a t i on o f la w to th o s e f

a c ts d e n o v o . U

n ite d S ta te s v . A c o s ta , 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 4 1 , 1 1 4 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2004) . W e c ons true the f a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the pa r ty pr e va i l i ng in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, U

ni t e d Stat e s v . H

r om ada , 49 F . 3d 68 5, 68 8 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ), a nd w e m a y a f

f i r m a di s tr i c tc our tde c i s i on on a ny gr ound s uppor t e d by the r e c or d,6

B ir c o ll v . Mia m i- D a de C o u n ty , 4 8 0 F .3 d 1 0 7 2 , 1 0 8 8 n .2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . W h ile

“ [t ] he w arra nt l es s s ea rc h o f aho m e i s pre sum pt i vel y unrea sonabl e, ” U ni ted Stat es v . T o b in , 92 3 F . 2d 15 06 , 15 10 (11th C i r. 19 91 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed),

“ [t ] h e ex i g en tci rcu m st an ces ex cep t i o n t o th e w arran treq u i rem en treco g n i zes a w a rr a n tle s s e n try b y c r im in a l la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic ia ls m a y b e le g a l w h e n th e r e is com pel l i ng need for offi ci al ac t i on and n o t i m e t o sec ure aw arra nt . ” B ashi r v . R o c kda le C o u n ty , 445 F . 3d 1323, 1328 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt ed). P robabl e c ause m ustexi st , ho w ever , even w here exi gentci rc um st ance s a r e p r e s e n t, i d. , a nd the gove rnm e ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng e xi ge nt c ir c u m s ta n c e s , U

ni t e d Stat e s v . H

ol low ay , 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s e x c e p tio n o n ly ap p lie s if th e p o lic e r e a s o n ab ly be l i e ve d tha ta n e m e r ge nc y s i tua t i on j us t i f i e d w a rr a nt l e s s a c t i on. I d. a t 1 3 3 8 . E xa m pl e s of

e xi ge ntc i r c um s t a nc e s i nc l ude : “ da nge rof f l i ghtore s c ape , l os s or destruct i on of evi dence, ri sk of harm t o the pu bl i c or the po l i ce , m ob i l i ty of a vehi cl e, and h otpu rs ui t . ” B a s h ir , 445 F . 3d a t1328 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks o m itte d ) . W e hol d tha te xi ge ntc i r c um s t a nc e s j us t i f i e d the w a rr a nt l e s s s e a r c h of A partm ent9 b ec ause the ri sk of harm thatthe offi ce rs re as on abl y per ce i ved pres ent ed a c om pel l i ng need for i m m edi at e a ct i on . T he offi ce rs bel i eved that7

M c W h o r te rw a s in s id e th e ap a r tm e n t w h e n S u a r e z n o tic e d th e c h r o m e r e v o lv e r . T h e o ffi cers k n ew , m o reo v er, th atM cW h o rt er w as k n o w n t o carry w eap o n s, w as a s u s p e c t in a t le a s t th r e e m u r d e r s , a n d w a s b e lie v e d to b e in s id e th e ap a r tm e n t. A lth o u g h T illm a n a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h e s a w a b e ig e v e h ic le le a v in g th e s c e n e a t a hi gh -r at e of s peed around the sa m e t i m e thatS uare z y el l ed “ gu n, ” T i l l m an t es t i fi ed tha thi s a tt e nt i on w a s f

oc us e d on the pot e nt i a l l y da nge r ous s i tua t i on a tthe ap a r tm e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rr , th e r e f o r e , in d e n y in g M c C o y ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s th e f

i r e a r m. W e r e j e c tM c C oy ’ s a r gum e ntba s e d on U n i ted S ta tes v. C o lb ert , 76 F . 3d 773 ( 6th C i r . 1996) , be c a us e the c i r c um s t a nc e s i n C o lb ert are n o tan al o g o u s t o th o se th at th e o ff

icer s f ac ed h er e. C o lb er t w as ar re sted w h il e lea v in g h is g irlfrien d ’s apa r tm e nt . E ve n though a s hot gun w a s r e s t i ng i n pl a i n vi e w i ns i de the apa r tm e nt w he n the of

f i c e r s a rr e s t e d C ol be r t , the S i xth C i r c ui tde t e r m i ne d tha tthe pr ot e c t i ve s w e e p of the apa r tm e ntw a s unr e a s onabl e be c a us e nothi ng s ugge s t e d tha ta ny one m ig h t h a v e b e e n in th e ap a r tm e n t. I d. H er e, ho w ever , the offi ce rs ’ bel i ef concerni ng the po ss i bl e pre se nce of a dangerous pers on i n A partm ent9 w as r e a s o n ab le . B . S u p p ressi o n o f th e K eys M cC oy nextar gu es thatthe keys t o A partm ent9 m ustbe supp re ss ed8

be c a us e the of

f i c e r s di s c ove r e d the m dur i ng a pa t - dow n i nc i de ntt o a n unl a w f ul a rr e s t . “ [ A ] l a w e nf

or c e m e ntof

f i c e r ’ s r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on tha ta pe r s on m a y be i n v o l v e d i n c r i mi n a l a c t i v i ty p e r mi t s th e o f f i c e rt o s t o p th e p e r s o n f o ra b r i e f t i me and t ake a dd i t i on al st eps t o i nv es t i gat e f urther. ” Hiib e l v . S ix th J u d ic ia l D is t. C o u r t o f N e v ., H u m b o ld t C o u n ty , 542 U . S . 177, 185, 188, 124 S . C t . 2451, 2458, 1 5 9 L . E d . 2 d 2 9 2 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . “O n c e a n o f f ic e rh a s le g itim a te ly s to p p e d a n in d iv id u a l, the of f i c e rc a n f r i s k the i ndi vi dua l s o l ong a s ‘ a r e a s onabl y prude ntm a n i n the ci rc um st ance s w ou l d b e w arra nt ed i n the bel i ef thathi s s af

ety or thatof others w as i n d anger. ’ ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

un ter , 291 F . 3d 1302, 1306 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng T

e r r y v . O h io , 392 U . S . 1, 27, 88 S . C t . 1868, 1883, 20 L . E d. 2d 889 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ) . Wh e th e ra n o f

f i c e rh a s r e a s o n ab l e s u s p i c i o n i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w th a twe r e v ie w d e n o v o . E v ans v . St e phe ns , 40 7 F . 3d 12 72 , 12 80 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( en ba nc ) . W e c ons i de rthe que s t i on i n l i ghtof the t ot a l i ty of

the c i r c um s t a nc e s f

r om th e p e r s p e c tiv e o f

a r e a s o n ab le o f

f ic e r . Hi cks v. Mo o re , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 6 , 1 2 5 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ). “ W hi l e ‘ re as on abl e s uspi ci on ’ i s al es s dem andi ng st andard than pr obabl e c a us e a nd r e qui r e s a s how i ng c ons i de r abl y l e s s tha n pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e , the F our th A m e ndm e ntr e qui r e s a tl e a s ta m i ni m a l l e ve l of obj e c t i ve j ust i fi ca t i on for m aki ng the st op . ” I l l i nois v . W

ar dlow , 5 2 8 U . S. 1 1 9 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 0 S.9

C t. 6 7 3 , 6 7 5 - 7 6 , 1 4 5 L . E d . 2 d 5 7 0 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e o f f ic e rm u s t “b e ab le to p o in t to s pe c i f i c a nd a r t i c ul abl e f

a c t s w hi c h, t a ke n t oge the rw i th r a t i ona l i nf e r e nc e s f r om tho se fa ct s, re as on abl y w arra nt[the] i ntrusi on . ” T erry , 39 2 U . S . at21 , 88 S . C t . at 1880. R e a s onabl e s us pi c i on doe s not , how e ve r , “ r e qui r e of f i c e r s t o c a t c h the suspec ti n a cr i m e. ” A c o s ta , 3 6 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 5 . B e c a us e the of

f i c e r s kne w tha tM c C oyw a s a c onvi c t e d f e l on, s pe c i f

i c a nd a r t i c ul abl e f

a c t s s uppor t e d the i rr e a s onabl e be l i e f upon s e e i ng the f

i r e a r m i n the apa r tm e nttha tM c C oy ha d c om m i tt e d orw a s c om m i tt i ng the c r i m e of pos s e s s i on o f a f ir e a r m b y a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e o f f ic e r s h a d th e r e q u is ite s u s p ic io n o f

c r im in a l a c tiv ity w h e n th e y d e ta in e d M c C o y a n d c o n d u c te d th e p a td o w n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rr , th e r e f o r e , b y d e n y in g M c C o y ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s th e k e y s . C . S uffi ci ency of the E vi dence M c C oy ne xta r gue s tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s nots uf f i c i e ntt o pr ove tha the know i ngl y pos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m . W e r e vi e w de novo w he the rthe r e i s s uf f i c i e nt e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t a c o n v ic tio n . U ni ted Stat es v. Cha rles , 313 F . 3d 1278, 1284 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) . I n c o n s i d e r i n g th e s u f f i c i e n c y o f

th e e v i d e n c e , we v ie w a ll o f

th e e v id e n c e “in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, w ith a ll i nfer ence s a nd cr edi bi l i ty c ho i ce s dra w n i n the go vernm ent ’ s f avor. ” U ni ted Stat es10

v . L e C r oy , 4 4 1 F .3 d 9 1 4 , 9 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 127 S . C t . 2096 (2 0 0 7 ). W e “ can n o trev erse a co n v i ct i o n fo r i n su ffi ci en cy o f th e ev i d en ce u n l ess . . . w e c o n c lu d e th a t n o r e a s o n ab le ju ry c o u ld f in d p r o o f b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le do ub t . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 913 F . 2d 1552, 1557 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . W he n, how e ve r , a de f

e nda ntf a i l s t o r e ne w hi s m ot i on f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l a f

t e ra l l of th e e v id e n c e h a s b e e n p r e s e n te d , r e v e r s a l o f th e c o n v ic tio n is ap p r o p r ia te o n ly to prevent“ a m ani fe stm i sc arri age of j ust i ce . ” U ni ted Stat es v. B ender , 290 F . 3d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) .

“ T o est abl i sh a vi ol at i on of T i t l e 18, U ni t ed S t at es C od e S ec t i on 92 2(g)(1), the go vernm entm ustprov e three el em ent s: (i ) thatthe defendanthas bee n conv i ct ed of a cr i m e pun i shabl e by i m pri sonm entfor at erm exce edi ng on e y ea r, (i i ) thatthe defendantkn ow i ng l y posse ss ed a f i re arm or am m un i t i on , and (i i i ) s uch fi re arm or am m un i t i on w as i n o r a ff ec t ed i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Fun ches , 1 3 5 F .3 d 1 4 0 5 , 1 4 0 6 - 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . B e c a u s e M c C o y s tip u la te d to the fi rs tand thi rd el em ent s, the on l y i ss ue i s w hether M cC oy kn ow i ng l y posse ss ed th e f ir e a r m . P os s e s s i on, i n the c ont e xtof § 922( g) ( 1) , “ m a y be pr ove n e i the rby s how i ng tha tthe de f

e nda nta c tua l l y pos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m , orby s how i ng tha the construct i vel y posse ss ed the fi re arm . ” U ni ted Stat es v. G on zal ez , 71 F . 3d 819, 83411

( 11th C i r . 1996) . T he gove rnm e ntm a y pr ove c ons truc t i ve pos s e s s i on by s how i ng tha tthe de f

e nda ntha d unr e s tr i c t e d a c c e s s ove rthe pr e m i s e s w he r e the c ontr aba nd w a s lo c a te d . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . H

a r r is , 20 F . 3d 44 5, 45 4 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ), m odi f i e d on othe rgr ounds , U ni t ed Stat es v. T

ol er , 1 4 4 F .3 d 1 4 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . F ur the r m or e , a tl e a s tw he r e s om e c orr obor a t i ve e vi de nc e of gui l te xi s t s f

orthe c ha r ge d of

f e ns e , “ a s t a t e m e ntby a de f e nda nt , i f

di s be l i e ve d by the j ury , m a y be co n si d ered as substan t i ve ev i dence of the defendant ’ s gui l t . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Br o wn , 53 F . 3d 312, 314 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . I n othe rw or ds , “ w he n a de f e nda nt c hoos e s t o t e s t i f

y , he runs the r i s k tha ti f di s be l i e ve d the j ury m i ghtc onc l ude the op po si t e of hi s t es t i m on y i s true. ” I d. (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). V i e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt , the e v id e n c e w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t th e ju ry ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t M c C o y c o n s tru c tiv e ly pos s e s s e d the f

i r e a r m . M c C oy a dm i tt e d tha the w a s a l one i n the apa r tm e nt , a nd the f ir e a r m w a s w ith in h is r e a d y a c c e s s n e a rth e c o u c h o n w h ic h h e w a s r e s tin g . A lth o u g h M c C o y te s tif

ie d th a t h e d id n o t k n o w ab o u t th e g u n , th e ju ry w a s f r e e to di s be l i e ve hi m a nd c ons i de rhi s t e s t i m ony a s s ubs t a nt i ve e vi de nc e of hi s gui l t . T he ju ry c o u ld h a v e r e a s o n ab ly in f e rr e d th a t M c C o y w a s m o r e th a n m e r e ly p r e s e n t in the apa r tm e ntba s e d on ( 1) the apa r tm e ntke y s f ound i n hi s poc ke t ; ( 2) the apa r tm e ntm a na ge r ’ s t e s t i m ony tha tM c C oy l i ve d i n the apa r tm e nt ; a nd ( 3) theI n s uppor t of hi s a r gum e nt , M c C oy c i t e s the S upr e m e C our t ’ s r e c e ntde c i s i on 2 i n C u n n in g h a m v . C a lifo r n ia , — U . S . — , 127 S . C t . 85 6, 16 6 L . E d. 2d 85 6 (20 07 ). I n C unni ngham , ho w ever , the S up re m e C ou rtre i t er at ed the pri nci pl e that“ the F eder al C ons t i tut i on’ s j ury - tr i a l gua r a nt e e pr os c r i be s a s e nt e nc i ng s c he m e tha t a l l ow s a j udge to im p o s e a s e n te n c e ab o v e th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m b a s e d o n a f a c t, othe r than a pr i or c onv i c t i on , no tfoun d b y aj ury or a dm i tt ed by the defe nd ant . ” I d. at— , 12 7 S . C t . at 8 6 0 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . A c c o r d in g ly , C unni ngham do es no taf fe ctth e o u tcom e her e b ecau se i tp reserv ed th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s ex cep t i o n fo r p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s. 12 l e tt e ra ddr e s s e d t o M c C oy f ound i n the ki t c he n. F ur the r m or e , the j ury c oul d ha ve r e a s onabl y i nf

e rr e d f r om the ke y s a nd hi s una c c om pa ni e d pr e s e nc e i n the ap artm en tth atM cC o y h ad u n restri ct ed access t o th e ap artm en t . A cco rd i n g l y, be c a us e a r e a s onabl e j ury c oul d ha ve f ound be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha tM c C oy v io la te d § 9 2 2 ( g ) , n o m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e o c c u rr e d . D . A r m e d C a r e e rC r i m i na l D e t e r m i na t i on M c C o y la s tly a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d h is F if th a n d S ix th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w he n i tf ound tha the w a s a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l a nd im p o se d a s en ten ce b ey o n d th e 1 0 -y ea r s tatu to ry m ax im u m b as ed o n th e c o u rt’s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s c o n c e rn i n g h i s p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s . Mc C o y a c k n o wl e d g e s th a twe 2 r e j e c t e d a n a r gum e nts i m i l a rt o hi s i n U ni ted Stat es v. G re er , 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 6 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2006) . H e r a i s e s the a r gum e nt , how e ve r , t o pr e s e r ve the i s s ue i n the e ve ntthe S u p rem e C o u rto v erru l es A lm enda rez- T orre s v . U

ni ted Stat es , 523 U . S . 224, 118 S . C t. 1 2 1 9 , 1 4 0 L . E d . 2 d 3 5 0 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . W e he l d i n G re ertha tdi s tr i c tj udge s m a y de t e r m i ne w he the rpr i or13

c o n v ic tio n s q u a lif

y a s v io le n t f

e lo n ie s u n d e rth e A r m e d C a r e e rC r im in a l A c t. G re er , 440 F . 3d a t1275. I n A lm enda rez- T orre s , m oreover, the S up re m e C ou rt he l d tha ta pr i orc onvi c t i on i s nota f a c ttha tm us tbe a dm i tt e d by a de f e nda ntor f o u n d b y a ju ry b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. A lm enda rez- T orre s , 523 U . S . a t258, 118 S . C t . a t1238. F ur the r m or e , M c C oy a c tua l l y a dm i tt e d a tthe s e nt e nc i ng h e a r in g to th e c o n v ic tio n s th a t q u a lif ie d h im a s a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r im in a l. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr by c l as si fy i ng M cC oy as an arm ed ca re er c r im in a l. I I I . CONCL US I ON F orthe r e a s ons s e tf

or th above , w e c onc l ude tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s s uf f i c i e nt t o s uppor tM c C oy ’ s c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m by a c onvi c t e d f

e l on, a nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrby de ny i ng M c C oy ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s a nd c l a s s i f y i n g M c Co y a s a n a r me d c a r e e rc r i mi n a l . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.