FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 11, 2010 J OHN P. L EY ACTI NG CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 01 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 36 1- CR-KD UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us LUDIVIC W HITE, JR., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 11 , 20 10 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BIRC H andSILER, Cir cu itJu dg es . * SILER, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, J r., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sitting * by designation.INT RODUCTI ON

Lud iv ic Whi te , Jr., ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of afir earm by a pe rs on co nv ic te d o f a m is de m ean orcri m e o f do m es ti c v io le nc e, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(9 ). Forth e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we af firm . I. At ar ou nd2: 00 a.m . onApri l 2 1, 2 00 7, Po li ce Offi cers BradLath am an d Oth a Lee Harg ro ve rece iv eda co m pl ai ntab ou t l ou d m

us ic co m in g fr om

a ve hi cl e pa rk edina hi gh -cri m e are a o f Mo bi le , Alab am a. Upo n a rri vi ng at t he sce ne , th e of fic ers saw ave hi cl e th atm at ch eddi sp at ch ’s des cri pt io n. As Offic er Harg ro ve dr ov e b y th e v eh ic le with h is win do ws p art ia ll y op en , he s m el le d a“ stro ng ” o do r of m ari juan a an d h eardm

us ic em an at in g fr om

th e car . The v eh ic le co nt ai ne d fo ur oc cupant s: two fem al es inth e fro ntsea t an d t wo m al es inth e b acksea t. Lath am ap pr oa ch edth e driv er an d a sk edforid en ti fic at io n, wh ic h s he was un ab le to pro vi de . The o ffi cers th enqu es ti on edth e o ccupa nt s ab ou t wh ethe r th ey ha d b een sm ok in g m ari

juan a. The o ccupa nt s d en ie d p os se ss in g o r us in g a ny dru gs . Lath am ask edth e driv er t o e xi t the ve hi cl e an d re qu es te d h er n am e an d s oc ia l se cu rit y nu m be r to pe rfo rm

a ba ck gr ou ndch eck . Lath am th enreque st edth atWhi te st ep ou t o f th e car . Sho rtl y th erea fte r, Harg ro ve , who was b us y pe rfo rm in g a ba ck gr ou ndch eckonth e o th er m al e p as se ng er, h eardLath am say “ gu n,” at wh ic h 2po in t h e sa w Lath am rem ov e a b la ckha nd gu n fr om Whi te ’s per so n. Th e o ffi cers arre st edWhi te aft er h e fai le d t o p ro du ce a p erm itforth e p is to l. No dru gs were fo un d i n t he car. Latha m fil edtwo po li ce re po rts de ta il in g t he in ci de nt , nei th er o f whi chm en ti on edth e smell o f m ari juan a. Harg ro ve di d n otfil e an y writ te n re po rts . Whi te was i nd ic te d fo r po ss es si on of afir earm by a pers on co nv ic te d o f a m is de m ean orcri m e o f do m es ti c v io le nc e, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(9 ). Befo re tria l, h e fi le d am ot io n t o s up pr es s the fir earm fou ndon hi s p ers on durin g th e se arch , arg ui ng th atth e o ffi cers ha d v io la te d h is Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts . Harg ro ve tes ti fie d t o t he fact s s ta te d abo ve at t he supp res si on he ari ng . On th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s, the co urt fo un d tha t h e was a cred ib le witne ss , andithe ldth at th e smell o f m ari

juan a g av e th e o ffi cers reas on ab le su sp ic io n t o d et ai n a ndqu es ti on th e p as se ng ers an d t o p atth em do wn fo r of

fic er s afet y . Bo th off ic ers tes ti fie d a t tria l. Harg ro ve ’s tes ti m on y rem ai ne d t he same. Lath am st at edth athe res po nd edto a lo udno is e co m pl ai nt ; wh enhe arri ve d o n t he sc en e, a carm at ch in g t he de sc rip ti on inth e co m pl ai ntco nt ai ne d fo uroc cupa nt s an d on ly the do m e li gh t was on ; an d t he oc cupant s, wh enqu es ti on ed , cou ldno t pr oduc e id en ti fic at io n. He s ta te d t ha t h e an d Har gr ov e as ke d a ll th e o ccupa nt s i f th ere wer e an y

weap on s o r il le ga l i te m s i n t he ve hi cl e, to whi cheach res po nd edin th e n eg at iv e. Afte r rec og ni zi ng Whi te as h av in g “ gi ve n [h im ] pr ob le m s i n t he pa st 3to wher e [s ic ] I st op pe d h im be fo re,” h e “pa tt edhi m

do wn fo r weap on s . . . for of fic er s afet y ,” whi chwas “ st an da rd[de pa rtment] pr act ic e.” As h e was pa tt in g Whi te do wn, h e n ot ic edth e g un ’s m ag azi ne pro tru di ng fro m Whi te ’s po ck et . He co ul d n otrem em

be r whe th er the re h adbe enan y m us ic pl ay in g i n t he car, al th ou gh he tes ti fie d t ha t i f th ere h adbe en , itwas n otlo ud . He st at edth athi s re po rt h adno t m en ti on edm ari

juan a, be cau se he ha d n otsm el le d a ny. Mar cu s C aro th ers an d Tequi laW ardPri nc e, two of the oc cupa nt s o f th e car , la te r te st ifi edth atth ey

ha d b een sm ok in g m ari

juan a p rio r to th e st op . They st at ed th atth ey ha d n otbe enpl ay in g l ou d m us ic , andth atth ey

be li ev edth atth e lo ud no is e co m

pl ai ntha d b een fil edby a dis grun tl edne ig hb or . They were u ns ur e whe th er the sm el l o f m ari juan a h adli ng eredinth e ai r, bu t the y est im at edth atth ey ha d c eas edsm ok in g m ari juan a b etweenfiv e to twen ty min ut es be fo re the off ic ers arri ve d. To p ro ve th e p red ic at e o ffen se , th e g ov ern m en t o ffer eda cert ifi edco py of Whi te ’s pre vi ou s m is de m ean or co nv ic ti on for

do m es ti c v io le nc e, whi chst at edth at he was c on vi ct edon Jan ua ry 11 , 20 05 , of d om es ti c v io le nc e in th e th irdde gr ee, ha ras sm en t, i n v io la ti on of Al ab am a Co de §§ 13 A-1 1- 8A an d 1 3A- 6- 13 2. 1
Under Alabama Code § 13A-6- 8A, har assment occ urs “if, w ith intent to harass, annoy , 1 or ala rm another

person, [he] . . . [ s]trikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touc hes a pe rson or subjects [him ] t o phy sical conta ct . . . [or] [d] irec ts abusive or obsce ne languag e or makes an 4Acco rd in g t o h is co nv ic ti on , onJu ne 22 , 20 03 , he t rie d t o c ho ke hi s the n l iv e-i n

gi rlf rie nd . The d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d h is ob jecti on th atth is co nv ic ti on di d n ot qu al ify as a p red ic at e o ffen se un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(9 ). Afte r th e g ov ern m en t re st ed , Whi te m ov edfora jud gm en t o f acqui tt al an d ren ewedhi s m ot io n t o s up pr es s the gu n. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d b ot h m ot io ns . The jury fo un d Whi te gu il ty, an d h e was sen te nc edto forty-si x m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The tri al co urt al so de ni edhi s s ub se qu en t m ot io n t o d is mis s b as ed up on Dis tri ctof C ol um

bi a v . Hell er, _

_ U.S. _ _, 1 28 S. Ct. 2 78 3, 1 71 L. Ed. 2d63 7 (2 00 8) . Whi te no w app eal s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 .

obscene g esture towa

rds another

person.” I d. A per son commits domesti c violence in the third degree if he c ommits the crime of har assment under § 13A-6-8Aand “the victim is a curre nt or former spouse, par ent, child, any person with whom the de fenda nt has a c hild in common, a prese nt or forme r household member , or a pe rson who has or had a dating or

eng ag ement relationship with the def

endant.” § 13A-6-132. 5II . A. 1. Whi te fir stco nt es ts th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o s up pr es s the gu n fo un d dur in g t he pa t-d own search . “ Ru li ng s o n m ot io ns to supp res s ev id en ce co ns ti tu te m ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfact .” Uni te d S ta te s v . LeCro y , 44 1 F .3d 91 4, 9 25 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e acc ep t the di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f act , in cl ud in g th e d is tri ctco urt’s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io ns , un le ss th ey are cl earl y

erro ne ou s. Uni te d S ta te s v . Ram ire z-Ch il el , 28 9 F .3d74 4, 7 49 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). W e rev ie w th e ap pl ic at io n o f la w to th os e fac ts de no vo . LeCro y , 44 1 F .3dat 9 25 . Becaus e th e p at -d own sea rchto pre se rv e o ffi cer s afet y was n otun reas on ab le gi ve n t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f th e m ot io n t o supp res s. 2.

“ Ouran al y si s [o f th e le ga li ty of th e p at -d own sea rch ] is go ve rn edby the pr in ci pl es of Terry

v. Oh io , 39 2 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1 86 8, 2 0 L. Ed. 2 d 8 89 (19 68 ), un de r whi chth e p ol ic e m ay st op an d b rie fly det ai n ape rs on to in ve st ig at e a reas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t h e is in vo lv edincri m in al act iv it y , eve n tho ug h p ro babl e cau se is lac ki ng .” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 8 76 F.2d15 21 , 15 23 (11 th Cir . 619 89 ). To jus ti fy a Terry st op , th e o ffi cers m us t “ ha ve a reas on ab le , art ic ul ab le su sp ic io n b as edon ob

jecti ve fact s t ha t the pe rs onha s en ga ge d i n, o r is ab ou t t o en ga ge in , cri m in al act iv it y .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lin ds ey , 48 2 F .3d12 85 , 12 90 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Powe ll , 22 2 F .3d91 3, 9 17 (11 th Cir . 20 00 )), cert . den ie d 1 28 S. Ct. 4 38 , 16 9 L. Ed. 2 d 3 05 (20 07 ). In c on ne ct io n wi tha Terry st op , an o ffi cer m ay

co nduc t a p at -d own search if h e h as reas on to be li ev e th athi s own saf ety or t he saf

ety of o th ers is at r is k. Terry, 39 2 U.S. at27 , 88 S. Ct. at 18 83 . “ The off

ic er n eedno t b e ab so lu te ly certa in th atth e in di vi du al is arm ed ; the is su e is whet he r a rea so nabl y pru de ntm aninth e ci rcu m st an ces wou ldbe warran te d in th e b el ie f th athi s s afet y or t ha t o f ot he rs was i n d an ge r.” Id . (em ph as is ad de d) . The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t (1 ) Harg ro ve was c red ib le , and(2) he sm el le d m ari juan a. W e “ m

us t ac cep t [t he se factua l fi nd in gs ] un le ss [th ey are] so in co ns is te ntor i m

pr ob ab le on [th ei r] face th atno reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d acce pt[th em ]. ” Ram ire z-Ch il el , 28 9 F .3dat 7 49 . Also , we m us t co ns tru e th e fac ts in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p arty th atpre va il edbe lo w (he re, the go ve rn m en t). Uni te d S ta te s v . Nun ez, 4 55 F.3d12 23 , 12 25 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Whi te foc us es on th e in co ns is te nc ie s i n t he off ic ers ’ te st im on y

—n am el y , th atHarg ro ve rem em be red th e m ari juan a smell, wh il e Latha m di d n otreco ll ectit . Howev er, i t i s n ot in co nc ei vabl e th attwo bu sy pol ic e o ffi cers tes ti fy in g abo utanin ci de ntth at 7oc curredov er a year pr io r rem em be redth e ex is te nc e o f th e smell o f m ari juan a di ffer en tl y . It i s al so no t unb el ie vabl e th atth e d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t Har gr ov e’s te st im on y ab ou t the m ari

juan a smell was cred ib le . Accep ti ng th es e fi nd in gs of f act , we ho ldth atbo th th e b rie f de te nt io n o f th e ve hi cl e an d i ts oc cupa nt s an d t he li m it edpa t-d own of Whi te were re as on ab le .

“ Rea so nabl e su sp ic io n i s d et erm in edfro m th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , and fro m th e co ll ect iv e kno wled ge of a ll th e o ffi cers in vo lv edinth e st op .” W il li am s, 87 6 F .2dat 1 52 4 (c it in g Un it edSta te s v . Cot to n, 7 21 F.2d35 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 3) ); se e al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Arvi zu , 53 4 U.S. 2 66 , 27 3, 1 22 S. Ct. 7 44 , 75 0, 1 51 L. Ed. 2d74 0 (2 00 2) (up ho ld in g d et en ti on when th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces crea te d reas on ab le su sp ic io n) . Giv enth atth e smell o f m ari juan a al on e m ay

pro vi de a ba si s fo r rea so nabl e su sp ic io n fo r fu rth er i nv es ti ga ti on of p os si bl e cri m in al co nduc t, the in it ia l s to p was va li d. Bry anv. Sp il lm an , 21 7 F . App ’x 88 2, 8 85 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Garci a, 59 2 F .2dat 2 59 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9) (ho ld in g t ha t s m el l of m ari juan a em an at in g fr om

ve hi cl e es tabl is he d re as on ab le su sp ic io n fo r se arch )). Add it io na ll y , eve n wi th ou t co ns id eri ng Harg ro ve ’s tes ti m on y reg ard in g m ari

juan a, th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces in di cat es th atth e p at -d own was re as on ab le . 2
Thus, we de cline to re ach the question of whethe r the smell of marijuana, which L atham 2 failed to a rticulate but the district c ourt held wa s prese nt, can be considere d in determiningthe leg ality of the pat-down sea

rch. 8“ [T]he is su e is whet he r a rea so nabl y pru de ntm aninth e ci rcu m st an ces wou ldbe warra nt edinth e b el ie f th athi s s afet y or t ha t o f ot he rs was i n d an ge r.” Terry, 39 2 U.S. at 2 7, 8 8 S . Ct. at18 83 (em ph as is ad de d) . Here, se ve ral fact or s s up po rt t he ob jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss of the search : Lat ha m res po nd edto a lo udm

us ic co m pl ai ntina hi gh -cri m e are a la te at n ig ht , see Uni te d S ta te s v . Gord on , 23 1 F .3d 75 0, 7 55 -5 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (no ti ng anarea ’s rep ut at io n fo r cri m in al act iv ity is a fact orth atm ay

be co ns id eredwhen de te rm in in g wh ethe r rea so nabl e su sp ic io n ex is ts ); t he off

ic ers were o utnu m

be redtwo -to -o ne ; n on e o f th e o ccupant s co ul d pr ov id e id en ti fic at io n; an d Lat ha m reco gn iz edWhi te as s om eo ne who ha d g iv en hi m tro ub le inth e p as t. Fo r th es e rea so ns , th e li m it edpa t-d own sea rch of Whi te di d n otvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, an d we a ffi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Whi te ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s the gu n. B. 1. Whi te ne xtarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y de ni edhi s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al ba se d o n i ts co nc lu si on th at hi s p rev io us do m es ti c v io le nc e co nv ic ti on was apre di cat e o ffen se forpu rp os es of § 92 2( g) (9 ). W e rev ie w de n ov o a d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on su ffi ci en cy of ev id en ce g ro un ds . Uni te d S ta te s v . Yates , 43 8 F .3d13 07 , 13 11 -1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 920 06 ) (en ba nc ). W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on , bec au se Whi te ’s un de rlyin g d om es ti c v io le nc e o ffen se is a pr ed ic at e o ffen se forpu rp os es of § 92 2( g) . 2. Sect io n 9 22 (g )(9 ) m ak es itil le ga l fo r a p ers on“ co nv ic te d i n any cou rt o f a m is de m ean orcri m e o f do m es ti c v io le nc e” t o p os se ss “ an y fir earm or am m un it io n” th atha s b eeninor a ffec ts in te rs ta te co m m erce . Sect io n 9 21 (a)( 33 )(A) d efi ne s a

“ m is de m ean orcri m e o f vi ol en ce” a s an off en se th at“ (1 ) ha s, as anele m en t, the us e [o f fo rce], an d (2 ) is co m m it te d b y a pe rs on who ha s a s pe ci fie d d om es ti c 3 rel at io ns hi p wi th th e v ic ti m .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hay es , __U.S. __ , 12 9 S .Ct. 1 07 9, 10 87 , 17 2 L. Ed. 2 d 8 16 (20 09 ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). Whi le th e g ov ern m en t m

us t es tabl is h t ha t the un de rlyin g o ffen se was co m m it te d a ga in sta pe rs on with asp eci fie d d om es ti c rel at io ns hi p b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t, § 92 2( g) (9 ) do es no t re qu ire th e p red ic at e o ffen se to ha ve th e sp eci fie d d om es ti c rel at io ns hi p a s an ele m en t. Id . at__ , 12 9 S .Ct. at10 82 -8 3. Acco rd Uni te d S ta te s v . Cha ve z, 20 4 F .3d13 05 , 13 13 -1 4 (1 1 Cir . 20 00 ) (h ol di ng th th atwhi le th e d om es ti c n atur e o f th e rel at io ns hi p m us t b e a fac t, i t n eedno t b e an Whit e does not a

rgue that the Ala

bama statue does not contain the use of phy sical for ce 3 as an e lement of the of

fense . Consequently , he has a bandoned this argument on appeal. See United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11 Cir. 1998) (“B eca use [defenda

nt] has t h offe red no a

rgument on [an] issue on appea l, we find that he has aba ndoned it.”). 10el em en t o f th e p rio r of fen se ); Un it edSta te s v . Griff it h, 4 55 F.3d13 39 , 13 46 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ The refo re, as we he ldinCh av ez, a do m es ti c rel at io ns hi p m us t ex is t as pa rt o f th e fac ts gi vi ng ris e to th e p rio r of fen se , bu t i t n eedno t b e anele m en t o f th atoff en se .”). To m eetth e d efi ni ti on of a“ m is de m ean orcri m e o f do m es ti c v io le nc e,” the of fen se m us t b e co m

m it te d b y (1) “ a cu rren t o r fo rm er s po us e,” (2 ) “ a p ers on with who m th e v ic ti m

sh ares a ch il d i n c omm on ,” (3 ) “ a p ers on who is co habi ti ng with orha s co habi te d wi th th e v ic ti m as asp ou se , par en t, o r gu ard ia n,” or ( 4) “by a pe rs on si m il arl y

si tu at edto a sp ou se , par en t, o r gu ard ia n o f th e v ic ti m .” § 9 21 (a)( 33 )(a) (ii ). At tr ia l the go ve rn m en t i nt ro du ceda cert ifi edco py of th e un de rlyin g c on vi ct io n, wh ic h c on ta in edid en ti cal ad dr es se s o f bo th th e v ic ti m an d Whi te . In ad di ti on , Whi te was c on vi ct edina “ do m es ti c d is pu te ” dur in g wh ic h h e pu sh edhi s g irl fri en d d own an d t he n t rie d t o c ho ke he r. Fin al ly, Whi te co nc ed es th ata li ve -in gi rlf

rie ndwou ldm eetth e d om es ti c rel at io ns hi p re qu ire m en t o f § 92 1( a)(3 3) (a). Th e v ic ti m was i n asp eci fie d d om es ti c rel at io ns hi p wi th Whi te : s he li ve d wi th hi m , was h is “ gi rlf rie nd ,” an d t he di sp ut e was a “ do m es ti c” o ne . Sev eral of ou r si st er ci rcu it s h av e h el d t ha t a “ ‘liv e-i n’ gi rlf rie ndqu al ifi es as ado m es ti c rel at io ns hi p fo r pu rp os es of [ §§ 92 2 a nd92 1( a)(3 3) (a)].” Bu st er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 44 7 F .3d11 30 , 11 33 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) . See al so Uni te d S ta te s v . She lt on , 32 5 F .3d 1155 3, 5 63 (5t h C ir. 2 00 3) (ho ld in g d efen da nt ’s adm is si on th athe li ve d wi th hi s

gi rlf rie ndwas s uf

fic ie ntto qu al ify the rel at io ns hi p u nd er § § 9 22 an d 92 1( a)(3 3) (a)) ; Un it edSta te s v . Deni s, 2 97 F.3d25 , 31 (1s t Ci r. 20 02 ) (as su m in g de fen dant ’s “ ‘liv e-i n g irl fri en d’” was si m il arl y si tu at edforpurp os es of § § 9 22 an d 92 1( a)(3 3) (a)) . Viewi ng , as we m us t, the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, Un it edSta te s v . Garci a, 40 5 F .3d12 60 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), th ere i s s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t o s ho w th ata “ do m es ti c rel at io ns hi p . . . ex is t[e d] as pa rt o f th e fac ts gi vi ng ris e to th e p rio r of fen se ” an d t ha t the tri er o f fac t co ul d h av e so fou ndbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Gri ffi th , 45 5 F .3dat 1 34 6. Th eref or e, th e di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de te rm in in g t ha t Whi te ’s pre vi ou s d om es ti c v io le nc e co nv ic ti on was apre di cat e o ffen se forpu rp os es of § 92 2( g) . C. 1. Whi te ’s las t ar gu m en t o n app eal foc us es on th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of § 92 2( g) (9 ). “ W e rev ie w de n ov o t he leg al qu es ti on of wh ethe r a s ta tu te is co ns ti tu ti on al .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tin oc o, 3 04 F.3d10 88 , 10 99 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Und er o urin te rp ret at io n o f Hel le r, __U.S. at _ _, 1 28 S. Ct. at 27 83 , we affi rm

hi s co nv ic ti on . 2. 12Altho ug h p rio r to Hell er we up he ldth e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of § 92 2( g) (9 ), ou r de ci si on di d n otres t o n S eco ndAm en dm en t g ro un ds . See Hil ey v. Ba rret t, 1 55 F.3 d 1 27 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (affi rm in g t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on up ho ld in g § 9 22 (g )(9 )’s co ns ti tu ti on al ity ag ai ns t co m

m erce claus e, equa l p ro te ct io n, subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s, ex po stfact o, b il l o f at ta in de r, an d Ten th Am en dm en t at ta ck s) . Tod ay

we li m itour ho ld in g t o d eci di ng whet he r § 9 22 (g )(9 ) m ay be pr op erl y in cl ud edas apre su m

pt iv el y lawf ul “ lo ng st an di ng pro hi bi ti on [] on t he po ss es si on of f

ire arm s,” acat eg ory

of p ro hi bi ti on s the Supr em e Co urt h as im pl ie d su rv iv es Seco ndAm en dm en t s cru ti ny. Hell er, _ _ U.S. _ _-

__ , 12 8 S . Ct. at28 16 - 17 . The Seco ndAm en dm en t p ro vi de s as fol lo ws: “ A well reg ul at edMi li ti a, be in g n eces sa ry

to th e se cu rity

of afree S ta te , th e ri gh t o f th e p eo pl e to ke ep an d be ar Arm s, s ha ll no t b e in fri ng ed .” U.S. Con st . am en d. II . Lasty ear, i n Hel le r, th e Supr em e Co urt i nt erp ret edth is lan gu ag e to “ gu aran te e [an ] in di vi du al rig htto po ss es s an d c arry weapo ns incas e o f co nf ro nt at io n.” __U.S. __ , 12 8 S . Ct. at 27 97 . In Hel le r

, th e Co urt he ldth atth e Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a’s ban o n h an dg un po ss es si on inth e h om e b y law- ab id in g c it iz en s v io la te d t he Seco ndAm en dm en t. Id . In d ic tu m , th e Co urt qua li fie d t he rig htto be ar arm s: “ [l]ik e m os t ri gh ts , [it ] is no t u nl im it ed .” Id . at _

_, 1 29 S. Ct. at28 16 . “ [N]oth in g i n [He ll er] sh ou ldbe

13ta ke n t o c as t d oubton lo ng st an di ng pro hi bi ti on s o n t he po ss es si on of f ire arm s b y fel on s an d t he m en ta ll y

il l, o r la ws fo rb id di ng th e carry in g o f fi rearm s i n s en si ti ve pl aces su chas s ch oo ls an d g ov ern m en t b ui ld in gs . . . .” Id . at__ -_ _, 1 29 S. Ct. at 28 16 -1 7. Whil e th e Co urt d idno t s pe ci fic al ly m en ti on § 9 22 (g )(9 ), itin cl ud eda fo ot no te to cla rif

y th atth e en um erat ed“pr es um pt iv el y lawf ul reg ul at ory

m eas ur es [are ] on ly exam

pl es ; [t hi s] li stdo es no t p ur po rt t o b e ex haus ti ve .” Id . at__ , 12 9 S . Ct . at 2 81 7 n .26 . W e are cal le d upo n t o d eci de whet he r th e st atut ory pro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t the po ss es si on of f

ire arm s b y

pe rs on s co nv ic te d o f th e m is de m ean or cri m e o f do m es ti c vi ol en ce, § 92 2( g) (9 ), warran ts in cl us io n o n Hel le r’s li stof p res um pt iv el y lawf ul lo ng st an di ng pro hi bi ti on s. As th e Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y no te d, § 92 2( g) (9 ) was pa ss edin19 96 inres po ns e to Co ng res s’s co nc ernth at“ [e]xi st in g fe lo n- in
po ss es si on laws . . . were n otke ep in g fi rearm s o utof t he ha nd s o f do m es ti c ab us ers , bec au se ‘ m any

pe op le who en ga ge inser io us sp ou sa l o r ch il d abu se ul ti m at el y

are n otch arg edwith o r co nv ic te d o f fel on ie s.’” Hay es , __U.S. at _ _, 12 9 S . Ct. at10 87 (qu ot in g 1 42 Co ng . Rec. 2 29 85 (19 96 ) (s ta te m en t o f Sen . Lau te nb erg )). Sect io n 9 22 (g )(9 ) was de si gn edto “ ‘clo se th is da ng ero us lo op ho le .’ ” Id . By

way of e xa m pl e, th e fed eral ba n o n fe lo ns -in -p os se ss io n i n § 92 2( g) (1 )—ast atut e ch arac te riz edinth e Hel le r di ctum as apre su m

pt iv el y lawf ul 14lo ng st an di ng pro hi bi ti on—d oe s n otdi st in gu is h b etweenth e v io le ntan d n on vi ol en t o ffen de r. Thu s, b ot h a n a rm edrob be r an d t ax ev ad er l os e th ei r ri gh t t o b ear arm s o n c on vi ct io n u nd er § 92 2( g) (1 ). In c on tra st , a pe rs on co nv ic te d u nd er § 92 2( g) (9 ) m

us t h av e fi rs t ac te d v io le nt ly towar d afam il y m em be r ordo m es ti c pa rtn er, a p red ic at e d em on st rat edby his co nv ic ti on fora m is de m ean orcri m e o f vi ol en ce. Thu s, al th ou gh pa ss edrel at iv el y rece nt ly, § 9 22 (g )(9 ) ad dr es se s the th orny pro bl em

of d om es ti c v io le nc e, a p ro bl em Co ng res s re co gn iz edwas n ot rem ed ie d b y

“ lo ng st an di ng ” fel on -in -p os se ss io n l aws . W e se e n o re as on to ex cl ud e § 9 22 (g )(9 ) fro m

th e li stof l on gs ta nd in g p ro hi bi ti on s o n wh ic h Hel le r do es no t ca st do ub t. See In r e Uni te d S ta te s, 5 78 F.3d11 95 (10 th Cir . 20 09 ) (o rd er) (“Not hi ng su gg es ts th atth e Hel le r di ctum , whi chwe m us t fo ll ow, i s n otin cl us iv e o f § 92 2( g) (9 ) in vo lv in g t ho se co nv ic te d o f m is de m ean ordo m es ti c v io le nc e.”). W e n ow ex pl ic it ly hol d t ha t § 92 2( g) (9 ) is a pr es um pt iv el y lawf ul

“ lo ng st an di ng pro hi bi ti on [] on t he po ss es si onof f ire arm s.” Hel le r, __U.S. __ -_ _, 12 8 S . Ct. at28 16 -1 7. Gi ve n t ha t Hel le r do es no t ca stdo ub t o n t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y

of § 92 2( g) (9 ), we affi rm Whi te ’s con vi ct io n. AFFIR MED.

15