# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 15 83

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ja so n Deb arg e Dev ers

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 13 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ja so n Dev ers ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t en te red up on a jury ve rd ic t 1
fin di ng hi m gu il ty of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a f i rear m , in vi ol at io n of 18

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g ) ( 1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). His co un se l ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v.

Cal ifo rn ia
, 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7)
, arg ui ng pr im ari ly th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t
to su pp or t th e ve rd ic t; an d Dev ers ha s fil ed pr o se su pp le m en ta l br ie fs rai si ng va rio us
po in ts . For t he reas on s t ha t fo ll ow, we af fir m

.

Fi rs t, we r e

je c t th e ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce th at Dev ers
po ss es se d th e gu n. As rel ev an t, th e tri al in cl ud ed th e te st im on y of two po li ce of fic ers who were di s p a t c h ed to an Om ah a res id en ce aft er th e ci ty’ s Sh ot Sp ot te r syste m in di cat ed th at ap pr ox im at el y fo ur sh ot s ha d b e e n fir ed th ere. The of fic ers te st ifi ed th at , ha vi ng ob ta in ed pe rm is si on to se arch
, th ey fo un d Dev ers in th e ba se m en t of th e

res id en ce, a fir earm ne ar hi m un de r a co uc h cu sh io n, an d sp en t sh el l cas in gs fro m th e fir earm in th e ba ck y ard ; and th at Dev ers in it ia ll y li ed ab ou t h is id en ti ty be cau se he ha d ou ts t a n d i ng warra nt s, an d was ob se rv ed reac hi ng in th e di rect io n whe re th e fir earm was ev en tu al ly fo un d. Viewe d in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, th is ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e ve rd ic t. See Uni te d St at es v. Sp ears , 45 4 F.3 d 83 0, 83 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w); Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 42 2 F.3 d 68 9, 691- 92 (8 th Ci r. 2005 ) (el em en ts of fel on -in -p os se ss io n of fen se ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Brad le y , 47 3 F.3 d 86 6, 86 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (wh il e m ere ph y si cal pr ox im it y is in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on of fir earm fo un d in ve hi cl e dr iv en by an ot he r, fact fin de r may in fer de fen da nt ha d co nt ro l of it ba se d on to ta li ty of ci rcu m st an ces , whi ch in cl ud ed de fen da nt ’s m ov em en ts in di cat iv e of reac hi ng to ch eck on or hi de fir earm ); Uni te d St at es v. Si an is
, 27 5 F.3 d 73 1
, 7 3 3

- 3 4 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (co ns tru ct i v e po ss es si on is es ta bl is he d whe re de fen da nt ha s do m in io n ov er
pr em is es whe re fi r e a r m is lo cat ed
, or ha s co nt ro l, own ers hi p, or do m in io n ov er fir earm it se lf; po ss es si on ne ed no t b e ex cl us iv e).

W e reject Dev ers ’s ot he r arg um en ts

. In pa rti cu la r, we f i n d n o m eri t to th e

a r gu m en t th at th e in di ct m en t sh ou ld ha ve be en di sm is se d fo r a Sp eed y Tria l Ac t vi ol at io n, se e Uni te d St at es v. Vil la rrea l, 70 7 F. 3 d 9 4 2
, 95 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (u nd er Act, t ria l m

us t co m m en ce wi th in 70 da y s of

in di ct m en t o r in it ia l ap pe aran ce u nl es s

-2

-ru nn in g of ti m e is st op pe d fo r reas on s se t ou t in st at ut e), or di s mi s s e d s u a sp on te

un de r Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 48 (b ) fo r pr e-i nd ic tm en t or pr e-t ria l de la y ,
se e Uni te d Stat es v. Glad ne y , 47 4 F .3d 10 27 , 10 30 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) (de fen da nt m us t

es ta bl is h de la y res u l te d in act ua l an d su bs ta nt ia l pr ejud ic e). W e fu rth er fin d no vi ol at io n of th e Se c o n d A mend m en t, se e Uni te d St at es v. Jo os , 63 8 F.3 d 58 1, 58 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 2 S. Ct

. 11 59 (2 01 2)
, an d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e

ex cl us io n o f a n affi da vi t of fere d by Dev ers , se e Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 2 (h ears ay in ad m is si bl e ab se nt ex cep ti on ); Uni te d St at es v. Two Elk
, 53 6 F.3 d 89 0, 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). W e do no t reac h an y in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m , to th e

ex te nt it su rv iv es Dev ers ’s waiv er of co un se l an d el ect io n to p r o c e e d pr o se

. See Uni te d Stat es v. Coo k, 35 6 F.3d 91 3, 91 9- 20 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s are ge ne ral ly be tt er le ft fo r po st co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs ); Hun te r v. Bo wers ox , 17 2 F .3d 10 16 , 10 24 (8t h C ir. 1 99 9)

.

Fi nd in g no ot he r no nf

riv ol ou s is su e fo r rev ie w, se e Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S.
75 , 80 (19 88 ), we affi rm . W e g ran t co un se l l eav e to wit hd raw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-