## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 2784 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OHN W. B LOC H, III, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:12cr2-001

—Rob ert L. Miller, Jr. , Judge .
A RGUED J AN UA RY 18, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AY 20, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Po l i ce o ffi cer s in Elkhart, Ind i ana, re sponded to a re porto fgunfire at an apar tm ent o n Dela w ar e S tr eetand w er e gr ee ted atthe doorbyan o bv i o us l y i nt o xi ca te d J o hn Bl o ch. Gi ve n the e xi g en t na t ur e o fthe c a l l, the o ffi c e r s t ol d Blo ch t o s t e p o ut s i de whi l e th eyc he cke d t o s ee i fa ny o ne was i nj ur ed. The apart m ent b el onge d t o Bloc h’s gi rl f ri end, wh o w as in sid e; th e o ffic e r s t o l d h er to w aitou ts id e a s w ell. A s it2 N o. 12

- 2784 turned o ut, ther e were no gun sh ot vi cti m s in the apart
m en t, b utthe o ffi ce r s l o ca te d a l o ade d Gl o ckha ndg un a n d a n S KS a s s a u l tr i fl e i n p l a i n v i e w. A s the offi cer s re m ove d the fi re ar m s f ro m th e apartm ent, Bl och pr ote ste d that the guns w er e hi s a nd dem anded thei r re turn. Thi s was a bol d stat em en t under th e ci r cumst an ce s; Bl o chi s a fel o n a nd a l so ha s a co nvi ct i o n f o r a do m es ti c- vi o l en ce mis demea no r, making h is fire ar m p os se ss ion a fed er al c rim e. See 1 8 U
. S
. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1) , ( g) (9). H e was ar re ste d and indi cted f or unlawful l y pos ses si ng a fi re ar m as a fel on and as a do m es ti c- vi o l en ce mis demea na nt
. W hi l e i n j ai l a wai ting tr i al, he m ade another ser i es ofrem ar ks he woul d l ate r com e t o re gr et. H e t ol d a fel l ow inm ate thatthe pol ice f ound his Glo ck and SKS ri fl e a t hi s g i rl f ri end’s apart
m en t and that he sh ou ld h ave h idd en them better. A j ury f ound B l och guil ty as charg ed , a n d the dis tr i ct co ur t i m po se d c o ns ec ut i ve se nt en ce s o f1 20 months and 18 m onths o n the tw o counts, f ora tot alse ntence of13 8 m onths. The m ai n i ssue on a pp eali s whether th e evi dence w as suffi ci ent t o prove that B loch posse sse d the fi re ar m s. Bl o ch m ak es th e r emar k ab l e cl ai m th at hi s sp o nta n eo u s d em an d for re tu rn of th e g u n s w as ca te go rica l l y unr el i ab l e as e vi den ce o fpo ss es si on bec au se he w as d r u n k w he n h e said it. To th e con trary, th e j urors w er e e n tit led to cr ed it t h i s e v i d en c e if th ey fou n d it persu as ive; and theyo bvi ousl y di d. M aybe theyr el i ed on the com m on w i sdom f ound in th e proverb i n v i no ve r i t as (“w in e s p ea ks th e t ru th ”). Se e W IL L I A M B ARKER,N o. 12

- 2784 3 T HE A DAG ESOF E RAS MUS 10 0 (20 01 ). B es id es , w h i le sobe r, Bl o chc o nfi ded to a no th erj ai l i nm at e th at he kept hi s Gl ockand hi s S K S rifle at h i s g i rl f ri end’s apart
m en t a n d r e gr et te d th at h e h ad n oth id d en th em w ell en o ug h. The e vi den ce was s uffi ci en t to pr o ve po ss es si o n. Blo ch al so chal l enges his c onsecuti ve sente nces on the tw o convi cti ons, but the g ove rnm ent r ai ses a m o r e funda m en ta l e r r o r tha t r equi r es c o r r ec ti o n a nd re sente nci ng. A singl e inci dent offi re ar m poss ess i on can y i el d onl y o ne co nvi cti on u nd er§ 922( g) , no m att er how m any di squal i fi ed cl ass es the defen d an t be l ongs to or ho w m a ny firearm s he p ossess ed

. Be cau se B loch’s convi cti ons for vi ol ati ng § 922( g) ( 1) and § 922( g) ( 9) ar i se out ofthe sam e inci dent offi re arm poss ess i on, they m us t be m erged i nt o a s i ng l e co unto fc o nv i ct i o n a nd B loc h m u st be res en te n c ed

.
I . B a c kg r o und One eveni ng i n N ove m b er 20 11, El khar t pol i ce r esponded to a re porto fsh ots fi re d at a n apart m ent o n Dela wa r e S t r e e t
. Whe n the o ffi c e r s a r r i v e d a nd kno cked on the dooro fthe ap artm ent, an obvi ousl y intoxi cate d Bl o c h a ns we r e d. Because they were inv esti gat i ng a r e po r to fg un fi r e , the o ffi c e rs tol d Bl o c h t o s t e p o ut s i de whi l e th ey swe pt th e apa r tment to en su r e that no one w as inju re d . Th e a p ar tm en t b elo n ge d to B loc h ’s g irlf r i en d, a nd s he t o o was a sk ed to wai t o ut si de dur i ng the s we e p. No o ne wa s i n f a c ti nj ur e d, b utthe o ffi c e r s f o un d a ful l y l o ade d Gl o ck

. 40

- ca l ibe r s emi

- au tom at i c ha ndg un4 N o. 12

- 2784 sit tin g on a n igh ts ta n d in a b e d ro om an d an SK S a ss au lt ri f l e i n a n o pe n c l o s e t
. Ne xt t o the a s s a ul t r i fl e w as a cl i p containi ng 54 r ounds ofam m unit i on, and nearby w er e 1 44 ro und s o f

. 40- cal iberam m unit i on f orthe pis

to l

. The o ffi ce r s se i ze d the g uns a nd the a m m uni ti o n. A s the o ffi cer s ca rr i ed the fi re ar m s a nd am m unit i on out ofthe apart m ent, Bl och obj ecte d to the c onfi scati o n o fhi s pr o per ty
. Lub r i ca te d b y dr i nka nd us i ngl an gu ag e o c c as ion ally lac ed w ith p ro fan i t y, B loc h to ld the offi cer s that the guns w er e hi s and dem anded th eir r e t urn. Bu t a s a c o nv i c t e d fe l o n, Bl o c h’ s po s s e s si on o f th e fi r e a r ms was i l l e g a l, s o th e o ffi c e r s a r r e s t e d h i m. As h e w as t ak eno fft o j ai l, Bl o chc o nt i nue d t o de m an d the r etur n ofhi s guns. A gr and j ury i nd i cted B loch on two co unts: (1) u n law fu l p os se ss ion of a fi r e a r m b y a felo n, see18 U
. S. C . § 922(g)( 1); and ( 2) un law ful posse ssion of a fi re ar m afterhavi ng be en co nvi cted o fa dom est i cvio len c e m isd em ea n or , see id. § 9 22 (g)(9 ). W h ile in j ail awai tingt r i al, Bl o chw as hous ed wi thDe m et r i us J ohnson, an i n m ate wh o w as f aci ng char ges o fcheck f ra ud and burg l ar y. They b ec am e fr i ends, shar i ng f oo d and play in g c h ess , and eve ntual l y Bl och c onfi ded to J o h n s on ab ou t t h e c irc u m st an c es th at lan d ed h im in j ail. H e e x p lain ed th at h e h ad be en p ar ty in g a t h is gir lf ri end’s apart m ent when som eone cal l ed the pol i ce ab o ut“ s ho t s fi r e d. ” Whe n the p o l i c e r e s po nd e d, they sea rche d the apart m en t a nd f ound his guns. J ohnson pr es sed Bl o chf o r de ta i l s ab o utthe fi r ea r m s. Bl o che xpla i ned that he o w ned a Gl ockhandgun and anN o. 12

- 2784 5

assa ult rifle, and kep t the m up stairs at hi s girl fri en d ’s apart m en t. H e a l so sai d he shoul d have hi dd en the m i n th e b ab y ’ s r o o m. A j ur y c o nv i ct ed Bl o cho n b o thc o unt s. At s en tenci ng the di str i ct c ourtgr ouped the § 922( g)(1) and § 922( g) ( 9) convi cti ons pu rs uant to U .S. S. G. § 3 D1. 2( d). Based o n ce r ta i n a g g r av at i ngo ffen se c ha r ac te r i st i cs a nd Blo ch’s leng thy c ri m i nal r eco rd, the re sul ti ng o ffense l eve l w as 26, w hi ch w hen com bi ned w i th a cr i m i nal hi sto rycat ego ryo fVI, yi el ded an a dvis or y guidel i nes ra nge o f12 0 t o 15 0 m onths. The di str i ct c ourtweighed th e s ta tu to ry se n t e n c in g fa c to rs , see18 U
. S. C
. § 3553 (a), and settled o n a s entence o f13 8 m onths, st ructur ed as f o l l o ws: 1 20 months

— th e m ax i m um

— o n t he § 9 22( g) ( 1) co unt, and a c onse c u tiv e 1 8 m onths on the § 92 2( g) ( 9) co unt.

I I . Discussi on Bl o ch ’ s fi rst argu m en t o n a ppea l i s a ch al l en g e to the s u ffi c i e n c y o fthe ev i d e n c e . Mo r e s p e c i fi c a l l y, h e c l a i ms that the e vi dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o prove thathe pos

ses sed the fi re ar m s t h at w er e s ei zed duri ng the se ar ch ofhi s g i rl f ri end’s apart m ent. The bur den on a suffi ci encyof

- the- evid en ce c hal l engeri s hea vy. See U nited Sta tes v. C a rter, 69 5 F
. 3d 69 0, 69 8 ( 7th Ci r . 20 12 ) ( “A de fen dan t w ho chal l enges the suffic iency ofthe evi dence f aces a daun tings tanda r d o fr ev i ew. ”)
. Ev al ua tingthe wei g ht of t h e e v i d en c e is th e job o f th e fin d er of fac t, s e eJac ks on v. Virginia , 443 U
. S. 307, 319 ( 1979 ) , so appella te revi ew i s hi ghl y defer enti al

. W e v i ew the evi dence and draw6 N o. 12

- 2784 al l r eas onabl e infe re nces i n the l igh t m ostf avo rabl e t o the j ury’ s v er dictand w i l l r eve rs e “ onl y i fno ra ti onal j u r y c o u l d h a v e f o un d th e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o fth e c r i me beyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt. ” U ni t e d St at e s v. Johns on , 592 F.3d 749, 754 (7th Cir. 2010). Bl o chwas c ha r g ed with unl awful l y po ss es singthe hand gun and ri fl e as bo th a fel on a nd as a dom est i cvi ol ence m isd em eanant. To c onvi ct hi m o fthes e cr i m es, the g o v e rnm ent ha d t o p r o v e tha th e p o s s e s s e d a fi r e a r m th a th a d t r a v e l e d i n o r a ffe c t e d i n t e r s t a t e c o mm er ce , an d al so th at he ha d th e r equi si te fel o ny an d d om es tic -vio len c e m isd em ea n or co n vic tio n s. U nited Sta t e s v . Allen , 383 F.3d 644 , 646-47 (7th C ir. 2004). T he re i s no di spute ab out Blo ch’s r ec ord ofco nvi cti ons, nor i s there any questi on that the two fi re ar m s s ei zed fro m h is gi rl f ri end’s apart m ent pass ed thr ough o r affecte d i nter sta te com m er ce. Bl o chc ha l l en g es only the g o ve r nm en t’ s ev i den ce o fpo ss es si o n. Posse ssi on in thi s con te x t can be actualo r const ructi ve. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi l l as e nor, 6 64 F
. 3d 67 3, 6 81 ( 7th Ci r. 2011 ). T h e t w o t yp es of p os se ss ion are qu alit at ive ly d iffer en t, bu t t h eir lega l effe c t is th e s am e. See U nited State s v. E ll is , 62 2 F
. 3d 784, 79 4 ( 7th Ci r. 201 0). A ctual posse ssi on occurs wh en the defendant has i m m edi ate p h ys ica l p os se ss i o n or c on tr ol of a firea rm . U nited Sta tes v. Ham pt on , 585 F .3 d 1 0 33 , 104 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. B a k er, 45 3 F
. 3d 419, 4 23 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. Constr ucti ve po ss es si on does notr equi re i m m edi ate physi cal posse ssi on o r contr ol ; i nstea d, the g ove rnm ent m ust pr o ve tha t th e d efendant“ k no wi ng l y ha d b o ththeN o. 12

- 2784 7 po wera nd the i nt en ti o n t o e xe r ci se do m i ni o n a nd c on tr ol ov er th e o bj ec t, eit h er d ire c tly or th ro u gh oth er s.” U nite d State s v. G ri

ff in , 684 F.3d 691 , 695 (7th C ir. 2012 ) . T h i s co nstr uct so m eti m es prese nts c hal l enges in d if ferentiating be tw een “true pos sessors ” an d “m ere byst an d er s ” w ho h ave n o conn ection to a gun bu t are m er ely i n t h e s am e v icin ity
. Id. Because the l aw does n ot ascr ibe c onst ructi ve posse ssi on t o m er e by sta nd er s, th e g o ve r nm en t m us t es tabl i sha ne xus b etw ee n the defen dan t an d the g un. Se ei d. ; Vi l l a s e n or, 66 4 F
. 3d at 6 8 1
. T h e “ n e x u s ” i n q u i r yso m et i me s i n v i t e s i t s o wn com ple xi ti es. Blo ch spar ed the gov ern m ent the pro bl em s o fpro of ord inaril y associated w ith con st r u c tive pos session, pa rti cul ar l y the co m ple xi ti es that som eti m es ar i se w hen fi re ar m s a re di sco ver ed i n a pl ace occupi ed by the defen d an t b u t o u ts id e o f h is e x c lu siv e c on tr ol. Se e G ri ff in , 684 F. 3d at 695- 98. H er e, the gov er nm en t e stabl i shed posse ssion l ar gel y thro ugh Blo ch’s unguarded st ate
m en ts at th e scen e of th e search

. A s the officers w ere re m oving the Glo ck hand gun a n d the SKS r i fl e fro m hi s g i r l f r i en d’ s apa r tment, Bl o chb l urte d o uttha t th e guns were hi s a n d dem anded thei r re turn. H e insi sts that these st ate m ents ar e who ll y unre l i abl e a s e vi dence o f p o s s e s s i o n b e c a u s e h e u t t e r e d th e m wh i l e d r u n k

. To th e c on tr ar y, B loc h ’ s i n to x ica tio n d oe s n otca te go ric ally und er m i ne the r el i abi l i ty ofthi s e vi dence; i t was i nstea d a f acto r f orthe j ury to consi der in deci ding w hat wei ght, if an y, to g ive to th e s ta te m en ts
. See M ergn er v. U nited Sta tes , 1 47F
. 2d 572, 5 72 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 94 5) ( di scussin g the e vi denti ar y pr i nci ple thata defe nd ant’s i ntoxi cati on8 N o. 12

- 2784 i s a f ac to r f o r the j ur y t o c o ns i deri n de te r m i ni ngthe w ei ght t o gi ve a co nfe ssi on) ; 2 J OHN H EN RY W IGM O RE , E V IDE NCE I N T RI ALSAT C OMMON L AW § 499, at70 8 ( J ame s H. C h a d b o u r n e d

. , L i t t l e , B r o wn& C o mpa ny rev. ed

. 1979) (sam e). P er h ap s t h e jur y fou n d B loc h ’s c laim of ow n e rs h ip m or e r el i abl e pr eci sel y beca use he m ade it w hi l e under the infl uence o fal cohol

. I fso , we w ou l d have no r eas on to questi on that j ud gm ent; Blo ch offers n o evi dence or au th or ity to e s t a b lish th at h is in to x ica tio n w ou ld h a v e ma d e h i s s t a t e me n t s u n r e l i ab l e . In th e s e c i r c u msta nces, the l aw r el i es on the co l l ectiv e com m on s ense an d human ex per i en ce o fthe j ur y . A nd in tha t do m ain,
“ ‘ [ i ] n vi no ve ri tas ’ i s a n expres si on that di d not or i gi nate i n f ancy . ” B ri ttv. Co m m onw ealth , 51 2 S
. W
. 2d 496, 500 (K y. 1974 ). “W ine sp eaks th e truth ” is “[a ]n adage f ound in m any c l ass i calautho rs , m eani ng tha t str ong dri nk st ri ps the m i nd o fi ts prete n c es and br i ngs ou t i n t o t h e op en w h at is h id d en in a m an ’s h ea rt .” B ARKER, s u p ra , at10 1. I t has l ong been obs er ved th at“ [ t] he r e is tru th i n wi ne ; i t ex tr ac ts s ec r et s f r o m the l o ck ed- up b o so m , a nd put s no t o nly th e r es er ve d, b ut eve n the habi tuall i aro ffhi s guard. ” H udgins v. G eorgi a , 2 Ga. 1 73 , 1 88 ( 18 47 )
. Not wi th st an ding hi s i nt o xi ca ti o n, B loc h ’s im p u lsiv e d em an d th at th e office rs re tu rn h is g uns i s qui te r el i ab l e as e vi den ce o fpo ss es si o n. I fm or e were needed, the j ury als o h ea rd ev i dence that a s obe r Blo ch adm i tte d to J ohnson, hi s fel l ow inm ate an d c he ss pa r tn eri n the j ai l, tha t th e Gl o ckpi st o l a nd the SK S r i fl e we r e h i s . He a l s o a dmi t t e d tha th e k e ptN o. 12

- 2784 9 th e g uns a t hi s g i r l f r i en d’ s ap artmenta nd s ai d he r e g r e t t e d n o th a v i n gh i d d e n th e m in th e b ab y ’ s r o o m. Bl o ch ’ s o wn st atem en ts atthe s ce ne a nd i n the j ai l, c o nsi der ed se par at ely o r t o g ethe r, were ea si l y s uffi ci en t to est abl i sh hi s pos ses si on o fthe fi re ar m s. Bl o cha l so c ha l l en g es hi s se nt en ce , a r g ui ngtha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t co m m i tt ed a g ui del i ne s er r o r b y i m po sing co ns ec utive t er m s o fi m pr i so nm en t. The g o ve r nm en t raises a di fferen t and m ore fund am en tal error, how ever, a nd f o r thr i g ht l y a c k no wl e dg e s tha ti tmus tb e c o r r e c t e d. The j ury f ound B l och guil ty oftw o § 922( g) cr i m es

— co unt on e w as ba se d on h is s ta tu s a s a felon , see § 922( g )(1), and count two was bas ed on hi s s tatus as a dom est i cvio len c e m isd em ea n an t, s e ei d. § 9 22( g) ( 9)
. But a per son c a n n o tb e c o n v i c t e d o fm o r e th a n o n e § 9 2 2 ( g ) c r i me b as ed on a sin gl e i n c i d en t o f p os se ss ion . W e h av e h eld th at“ [ a] l th o ug h the g o ve r nm en t i s f r ee t o pur su e m ult i ple th eor i es ofvi ol ati on a t t ri al, o nl y o ne co nvi cti on m ay re sul t under § 922( g) f ora si n gle i nci dent of posse ssi on, ev en tho ugh the defendant m ay bel ong to m or e than one disqual i fi ed cl ass . ” U nited Sta t e s v . P a rker, 5 0 8 F .3 d 43 4, 44 0 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ) (cit at ion om itt ed ). In Parke rw e adopted the unani m ous pos i ti on o fo ur s i ste r ci rcui ts that “§ 922( g) cannot s up portm ult i ple co nvi cti ons base d on a si ngl e fi re ar m poss ess i on be cause the a l l owable uni t of p ro se cuti on i s the i nci dent ofposses si on, notthe defe nd ant’ s m em ber shi p in a cl ass ( orcl ass es) o fper sons disqual i fi ed fro m poss ess i on. ” Id. M or eo ve r, a sin gle ac t o fp o s s es sio n ca n yield on ly o ne c o nv i ct i o n un der§ 92 2( g ) e ve n i fthe de fen dan t10 N o. 12

- 2784 p os se ss ed m u ltip le fire ar m s a t t h e s a m e t im e. See U nite d Sta tes v. M o ses , 51 3 F
. 3d 727, 73 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( re cogni zi ng that fo r § 922( g) “the uni t o fpro secuti on [ i s ] th e a c to fp o s s e s s i o n, a n d n o tthe n u mb e r o ffi r e a r ms p o ss es se d ”); U nited Sta tes v. B uc hm eier, 2 5 5 F
. 3 d 4 1 5, 42 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( “We ha ve thus de te r m ined th atwhena defe nd ant’ s pos ses si on o fm ult i ple fi rear m s i s s i m ult an eo u s a n d u n d iffer en tia te d , th e g ov er n m en t m ay on ly ch ar g e th at defen dan t wi th o ne vi o l at i o n o f§ 92 2( g ) ( 1) a nd § 9 2 2 (j ) , r e g a r d l e s s o fth e a c t u a l qu a n t i t y o ffi r e a r ms involv e d

. ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ri ch ar ds on , 43 9 F
. 3d 421, 42 2 ( 8th Ci r. 20 06) (“W e now . . . j oi n al l the othe r Cir cui ts that have add re sse d thi s i ssu e to hol d that Congr ess i ntended the ‘ al l owable u ni t ofpro secuti on’ to be an i nci dent ofpossessi on r ega rdl ess o fwh ethera defe nd ant s ati sfi ed m ore t h a n on e § 922(g) cl assifi cation, pos sesse d m ore th an on e fire ar m , o r p os se ss ed a fire ar m an d am m u n ition.”). Bl o ch ’ s two c o nv i ct i o ns a r e th er efo r e m ul ti pl i ci to us an d m us t be mer g ed. The c o nv i ct i o ns a rose f r o m the sa m e i n c iden t of fi rearm pos session, and the on ly d ifference between them i s the di squal i fied c lass to wh i ch B l o c h b e l o n g e d

. T h a tB l o c h p o s s e s s e d t wo fi r e a r ms does not affect thi s co nclu sio n. The pro per re m edy f or the mul t i pl i c i t y e r r o r i s me r g e r ; o ne c o nv i c t i o n m ust b e v ac at ed an d m e r g e d int o th e o th er . P a rker, 50 8 F
. 3d at4 41

- 42
. Onc e th e co nv i ct i o ns a r e m erged , the s ta tu
tor y m ax im um i s 1 20 m onths. See 18 U
. S. C
. § 924(a)(2). Bec au se Bl o ch ’ s se nt en ce e xc ee ds th at m ax i m um , he m us t b e r es en te nc ed. W e co m m en d the g o ve r nm en t for raisi ng the error.N o. 12

- 2784 11 Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we V A CA TE the j udg m en t a nd R E M AND f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs c onsi ste nt with th i s o p i n i o n . T h e d i st r i c tc o u r ts h a l l me r g e th e t wo § 9 22 (g) c on vic tio n s a n d res en te n c e B lo c h o n a sin gle co unto fc o nv i ct i o n.

5- 20- 13