FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 24, 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. 06- 13855 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 25 -C R -W -N 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 R O D R I C K M O N R O E , S R ., 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 o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 24, 2007) B efo re H U L L , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R odr i c k M onr oe appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f orbe i ng a n unl a w f

ul u s e ro f a c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e a r m, i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 3 ) . A f

t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . BA C K G R O U N D FA C TS R es po nd i ng t o a re po rtof a s ho ot i ng , l ocal po l i ce offi ce rs arri ved at M onr oe ’ s r e s i de nc e t o f i nd S ha r on M i l e s w i th guns hotw ounds t o he rha nds a nd he a d. M i l e s t ol d of

f i c e r s tha tM onr oe , w ho w a s he rboy f r i e nd, ha d a c c i de nt l y s hot he r . M onr oe a dm i tt e d t o of f i c e r s tha the w a s a r e gul a rus e rof c r a c k c oc a i ne a nd h a d u s e d c r a c k c o c a in e ap p r o x im a te ly 2 4 h o u r s b e f o r e th e s h o o tin g . A s e a r c h o f

M o n r o e ’s h o m e u n c o v e r e d th r e e f ir e a r m s . M o n r o e a d m itte d to offi ce rs thattw o o f the gu ns w er e hi s a nd thatthe thi rd gu n b el on ged t o h i s brother b u t h a d b e e n in M o n r o e ’s p o s s e s s io n f o rtw o y e a r s . A ttri al , M on roe, M i l es and o ne of the offi ce rs , S er geantS on ny S chri eber , pr ovi de d t e s t i m ony c ons i s t e ntw i th the a bove f a c t s . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , S e r ge a nt S chri ebert es t i fi ed thatM on roe had adm i tt ed thathe sm ok ed cr ac k cocai ne as oft en a s pos s i bl e a nd s l e pt , w a l ke d a nd s how e r e d w i th a gun. M i l e s t e s t i f i e d tha ts he l i ve d w i th M onr oe , tha ts he ha d s e e n f i r e a r m s i n M onr oe ’ s hom e a nd tha tM onr oe used cr ac k cocai ne al l day, every day . M on roe t es t i fi ed thathe had u se d cra ck c o c a in e o f

f a n d o n s in c e r e tu rn in g f r o m V ie tn a m a n d th a t a ll th r e e g u n s f o u n d in3

hi s hom e be l onge d t o hi m . M onr oe a l s o a c know l e dge d us i ng c r a c k c oc a i ne f r om b efo re C h ri stm as u n t i l h i s arresti n m i d -Jan u ary. T he j ury f

ound M onr oe gui l ty . T he di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d M onr oe t o 60 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, M o n r o e r a is e s s e v e r a l a r g u m e n ts th a t a r e c le a r ly w ith o u t m e r it a n d w h ic h w e a d d r e s s o n ly b r ie f ly . F ir s t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its di s c r e t i on by r e f

us i ng t o gi ve M onr oe ’ s pr opos e d j ury i ns truc t i on de f i ni ng the te r m s “a d d ic t” a n d “u n la w f u l u s e r ” b e c a u s e M o n r o e f a ile d to r e q u e s t th is i ns truc t i on i n w r i t i ng a nd i n a t i m e l y m a nne ra s r e qui r e d by F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 30. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C unni ngha m , 194 F . 3d 1186, 1200 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ) ( af

fi rm i ng di stri ctcourt ’ s r ef usal t o g i ve i nstruct i on w here defe nd antfa i l ed t o com pl y w i th R ul e 30). W e a l so re j ec tM on roe’ s c on t ent i on that 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g )(3 ) i s u n co n st i tu t i o n al l y v ag u e as ap p l i ed t o h i m b ecau se “u n la w f u l u s e r ” a n d “a d d ic t” a r e u n d e f in e d . T h e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l e s tab lis h e d th a t, in th e d a y s a n d w e e k s le a d in g u p to h is a rr e s t, M o n r o e s m o k e d c r a c k c o c a in e . O rdi nary peop l e w ou l d u nd er st and t hatthi s c on du ctconst i tut ed un l aw ful use of a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e w i thi n the m e a ni ng of § 922( g) ( 3) . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M art e, 35 6 F . 3d 13 36 , 13 42 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( expl ai ni ng thatvagu enes s c hal l engesIn Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (1 1 th C ir. 1981) (en banc) , we adopted as 1 binding prece dent all dec isions from the former Fifth Circuit dec ided on or be foreSeptember 30, 1981. 4 m u stb e ev al u at ed i n l i g h to f th e fact s o f th e case at han d , ex cep tw h ere F i rst A m endm entri gh t s a re i nv ol ved). S e c ond, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc ons truc t i ve l y a m e nd M onr oe ’ s i ndi c tm e nt w hen i tgave a s up pl em ent al j ury i nstruct i on expl ai ni ng thatthe i nd i ctm ent , w hi ch w as ph ra se d i n the conj un ct i ve, w as consi st entun der the l aw w i th the j ury ver di ct f or m , w hi c h w a s phr a s e d i n the di s j unc t i ve . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i m ps on, 228 F . 3d 1294, 1300 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha ta n i ndi c tm e ntphr a s e d i n the c onj unc t i ve i s notc ons truc t i ve l y a m e nde d by a j ury i ns truc t i on phr a s e d i n the di s j unc t i ve ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C orni l l i e , 92 F . 3d 1108, 1110 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( a f f ir m in g d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e s p o n s e to ju ry q u e s tio n th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t c o u ld c ha r ge the de f

e nda nti n the c onj unc t i ve butpr ove the c a s e a ttr i a l i n the d is ju n c tiv e ) . T hi r d, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by r e f us i ng t o r e pe a tthe e nt i r e j ury c ha r ge a f

t e rgi vi ng the s uppl e m e nt a l j ury i ns truc t i on di s c us s e d a bove be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tr e m i nde d the j ury of the bur de n a nd qua ntum of pr oof a n d th e p r e s u m p tio n o f

in n o c e n c e a n d to c o n s id e ra ll th e in s tru c tio n s a s a w h o le . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ’ H os t e , 609 F . 2d 796, 809 ( 5th C i r . 1980) . F our th, the 15

d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y r e f u s in g to a llo w M o n r o e to p r e s e n t a j u st i fi cat i o n d efen se b ecau se, ev en assu m i n g arg u en d o th atth e affi rm at i v e d efen se is a v a ilab le in § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 3 ) c a s e s , M o n r o e f a ile d to s a tis f

y th e e le m e n ts n e c e s s a ry to e s t a bl i s h a j us t i f

i c a t i on de f

e ns e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e l e ve a ux, 205 F . 3d 1292, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( de l i ne a t i ng the e l e m e nt s ne e de d t o e s t abl i s h a j us t i f i c a t i on d e f e n s e to a c h a r g e u n d e r§ 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) ) . F i f th, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by e xc l udi ng e vi de nc e of M onr oe ’ s pos t - tr a um a t i c s tr e s s di s or de ra nd m e nt a l pr obl e m s be c a us e § 922( g) ( 3) i s nota s pe c i f

i c i nt e ntc r i m e . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 17( a ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m e r on, 90 7 F . 2d 10 51 , 10 60 -66 (11 th C i r. 19 90 ) ( expl ai ni ng thatby enac t i ng § 1 7(a) , C o n g r e s s e lim in a te d th e u s e o f p s y c h ia tr ic e v id e n c e to s h o w d im in is h e d c ap a c ity f o rp u rp o s e s o f

e x o n e r a tio n o rm itig a tio n , b u t p e r m its its u s e to n e g a te s p e c if ic in te n t w h e n it is a n e le m e n t o f th e c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e ) . S ix th , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by e xc l udi ng e vi de nc e i n s uppor tof a n i gnor a nc e of

the l a w de f e ns e orby r e f

us i ng t o i ns truc tthe j ury on tha tde f e ns e be c a us e M onr oe ac t i vel y posse ss ed a f

i re arm w hi l e bei ng an un l aw ful userof cr ac k cocai ne. S ee L a m be rtv. C a l i f

orni a , 355 U . S . 225, 228, 78 S . C t . 240, 243 ( 1957) ( c onc l udi ng th at an ig n o ra n ce o f th e law d ef en se is ap p ro p riate o n ly w h en th e d ef en d an t’ s c o n d u c t is w h o lly p a s s iv e ) .Monroe also argues that the district cour t erre d in denyi n g h is moti on for a downward 2 depar ture. We are without jurisdiction to review this claim, however, bec ause thedistrict court rec ognized its authority t o d epart downward and dec lined to grant Monroe’ s motion. S ee United States v. Wi nninge ar, 422 F .3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005). 6 F i n al l y, th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr atsen t en ci n g w h en i tap p l i ed th e cro ssr e f e r e n c e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) b e c a u s e th is p r o v is io n ap p lie s to un char ged con du ct , se e U ni t ed S t at es v. M i l l er , 16 6 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 55 (11t h C i r. 1999) , a nd M i l e s t e s t i f

i e d tha tM onr oe s hothe rdur i ng a n a l t e r c a t i on a nd tha ts he h a d lie d to th e r e s p o n d in g p o lic e o f f ic e r s th a t th e s h o o tin g w a s a c c id e n ta l. 2 M on roe’ s f

i nal ar gu m entm er i t s abi tm ore di sc ussi on . M on roe a rgues that the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ury i nstruct i on s m i ss t at ed the el em ent s of hi s off ense . U nd er§ 92 2(g)(3), i ti s “ un l aw ful for any pers on . . . w ho i s a n u nl aw ful userof or addi ct ed t o a ny c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e . . . t o . . . pos s e s s i n ora f f e c t i ng c om m e r c e , a ny f ir e a r m o ra m m u n itio n . . . .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 3 ) . H er e, w hen chargi ng the j ury, the di stri ctcourtfi rs tre ad the st atut ory la n g u a g e o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 3 ) a n d th e n in s tru c te d th e ju ry th a t M o n r o e c o u ld be f ound gui l ty of

the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e i f the gove rnm e ntpr ove d be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt“ tha tbe f or e the de f

e nda ntpos s e s s e d the f

i r e a r m , the de f

e nda nt had b ee n an u nl aw ful userof or addi ct ed t o a cont rol l ed subst ance , such as cr ac k c o c a in e .” ( E m p h a s is a d d e d .) M o n r o e a r g u e s th a t th is in s tru c tio n e rr o n e o u s ly7

i nd i ca t ed t o the j ury thati tneeded t o fi nd thatM on roe posse ss ed a f i re arm before becom i ng an un l aw ful userof cocai ne. In supp ort , M on roe poi nt s t o a j ury que s t i on s ubm i tt e d dur i ng de l i be r a t i ons a s t o w he the rthe de f e nda nt ’ s pos s e s s i on of the fi re arm had t o o cc ur before the defendantbeca m e a n u nl aw ful user . O r di na r i l y , w e r e vi e w de novo the l e ga l c orr e c tne s s of a j ury i ns truc t i on; how e ve r , w he n, a s he r e , the de f e nda ntdi d notobj e c tt o the j ury i ns truc t i on i n the di s tr i c tc our t , w e r e vi e w onl y f orpl a i n e rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P r a the r , 205 F . 3d 1265, 1270 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . T o r e ve r s e unde ra pl a i n e rr ors t a nda r d of r e vi e w , the ch al l en g ed i n stru ct i o n m u stb e a p l ai n l y i n co rrectst at em en to f th e l aw an d m u st have been “ ‘ prob abl y r es po nsi bl e f or an i ncorrec tverdi ct , l ea di ng t o sub st ant i al in ju s tic e .’” I d . a t 1 2 7 1 ( q u o tin g M o n tg o m e ry v . N a g a , 1 6 8 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 9 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 99 )) . W e not e tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ta c know l e dge d i t s e rr ora f t e rr e c e i vi ng the j ury’ s quest i on . T he di stri ctcourtprop osed a c orre ct i on thatre m ov ed the w ord “b e f o r e ” f r o m th e in s tru c tio n a n d r e d e f in e d th e s e c o n d e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e to st at e thatthe go vernm entneeded t o p rove thatthe defendantw as an un l aw ful user of or addi ct ed t o a cont rol l ed subst ance atthe t i m e of the po ss es si on . T he di stri ct co u rt ’ s p ro p o sed co rrect i o n w as n o tsu b m i tt ed t o th e j u ry, h o w ev er, b ecau se M onr oe obj e c t e d t o i t . I ns t e a d, the di s tr i c tc our ti ns truc t e d the j ury t o r e l y on the8

pl ai n l angu age of the st atut e. H e r e , f ors e ve r a l r e a s ons , M onr oe f a i l e d t o s how tha ta ny a l l e ge d e rr ori n the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in s tru c tio n w a s “p r o b ab ly r e s p o n s ib le f o ra n in c o rr e c t v e r d ic t.” F i rs t , thi s i s s o b ec ause the chal l enged i nstruct i on , i f a nythi ng , pu ta gre at erbu rden on the gove rnm e nttha n i s r e qui r e d by the s t a tut e . U nde rthe s t a tut e , the da t e the de f e nda nta c qui r e d the f

i r e a r m i s i rr e l e va nts o l ong a s the de f e nda ntpos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m c ont e m por a ne ous l y w i th the unl a w f ul drug us e . T he j ury i ns truc t i on r e qui r e d the gove rnm e ntt o s how tha tM onr oe w a s us i ng c r a c k e ve n be f or e he pos s e s s e d the f

i r e a r m . S e c ond, the di s tr i c tc our tpr opos e d t o c orr e c tthe i ns truc t i on, butM onr oe obj e c t e d a nd c a nnotc om pl a i n now , m uc h l e s s s how subst ant i al i nj ust i ce . T hi rd, the evi dence w as ov erw hel m i ng thatM on roe use d c r a c k w hi l e he pos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m , a nd M onr oe ha s t ot a l l y f a i l e d t o s how the ju ry in s tru c tio n w a s r e s p o n s ib le f o ra n in c o rr e c t v e r d ic t. F or al l the foregoi ng re as on s, w e a ff i rm M on roe’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . AF F I RME D.