The Honor able Micha el R
. Ba rre tt, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of Ohio, * sitti ng by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0545n.06 No. 07-3655 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. RODNEY F . KI

NG, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R THE N O RT H E RN D I ST RI CT OF O H IO O P I N I O N

BEFORE: GILMA N an d McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and B ARRETT, District Judge. * McK EAGU E, Circuit Judge. A fe de ra l jur y c on vic te d Rod

ne y F . K ingof

be inga fe lon in possession of a fir ear

m and of possessing narc otics with the i ntent to distribute. King repr esente d himself at trial, althoug h he had assistance from lega l counsel. On appe al, he c ontends that there was insufficient e vidence that he possessed e ither the fir ear m or the nar cotics. He also raise s sever al purp or te d e rr or s in vo lvi ng the te sti mony of a de te c tiv e . F ina lly , he a tta c ks the re a so na ble ne ss o f h is
se nte nc e , r e lying pr ima

ri ly on his a g e (5 7 y e ars ) at the tim e of se nte nc ing . F or

the re a so ns se t f

or th below, we aff

irm King ’s convictions and se ntence
.No. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 2 - I On J anuar

y 24, 2006, at about 4:00 p.m., the Toledo Police De partment e x ecute d a sea rch
war rant at 1215 Pag e Stree t, Toledo Ohio, looking f or evide nce r elated to na

rcotics tra fficking . Once the SWAT team had sec ured the residenc e, De tective B rent Scoble a nd his searc h team ente red the ho me a nd fo u n d

K i n g f a c e - d o w no nt h e f

l o o r i nth e l i v i n g r o o m n e ar

t h e d o o r w ay t o t h e m i d d le be dr oo m and

ano the r man, Ma lc olm Ric ha rd so n, fa c e -d ow n in

the liv ingro om. De te c tiv e Sc ob le set up evidenc e collec tion on the kitchen table and sear ched the front bedroom, but did not conduct the re st of the sea

rch himsel f; o t h er members of Detec tive Scoble’s sea

rch te am conduc ted the
sear ch. I mmediately upon entry , Detec tive Way lond Rider sear ched the two men for w eapons a nd
re ad them their Miranda r ig h ts
. D e te c ti v e Ri d e r f o u n d $ 2 2 0 in U
. S. c u r r e n c y o nK in g ’ s p erson. Detec tive Gre g ory

Mattimore noticed a rock of cra ck cocaine on a table in one of the be drooms and
a sk e d , “ [W ]h o s e b e dr o o m i s t h i s ?” an d K i n g r e s p o n d e d

t h a ti tw a s h i s b e dr o o m . Jo i n tA p pe nd ix (“JA”) 142. The sea rch of the middle bedroom turned up two presc ription bottl es with King ’s name on them, a s y

ri n ge box with King’s name on it, and a piec e of ma il, postm arke d J anuar y 24, 2006, addre ssed t o King at 915 Peck, Tole do Ohio. I n the same r oom, Detec tive Rider also found a set of key s, one of whic h opened the front door. D etec t i v e Mattimore discover ed a loa ded .32 ca liber Kimel revolve r in the closet of t he bedroom on the floor among some shoes. Dete ctive Mattimore
a s k e d K i n g i f t h e r e w e r e an y m o r e f i r e ar m s i n t h e r e s i d e n c e an d K i n g r e p l i e d , “ [N ]o , t h a t ’ s i t
. ” JA 145-46. No other

wea pons were found in the re sidence
.No. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 3 - Detec tive Nora

Mug ler a sked King if there wer e any drug s in his bedroom and he r esponded that there was a

bag of mari j u an a i n h i s coat. De tective Mug ler subseque ntly found a ba g of
m ar i j u an a i nt h e c o at
. T h e s ea rc h t ea m fo u n d a l ar ge q u an t i t y o f cr ac k

co ca i n e b et we en t h e ga rb age
can a nd the g arba g e bagin the bedroom. Additionally , the sear ch team found a purple plastic plate,
a ra zor, plastic bag g ies, and crac k coca ine i n smaller quantiti es i n the bedroom. No fing erpr ints were found on the plate s or the fire arm. The cra ck coc aine amounted to seventee n g rams. When Detec tive Scoble tried to spe ak to K ing about the firea rm and the drug s, King replied that he did not want to talk about it, but added “that he had been doing this since befor e [Detec tive Scoble] was in police t ra i n i n g. ” J A 129. Detective Scoble laug hed and r eplied that King had probably been c ommitt ing c rimes bef ore the detec tive was born, to whic h King replied, “ No, I ’m talking about selling dr

ug s.” Id. As of

fi c e rs re mov e d K ingfr om t he re sid e nc e , h e sh ou te d to pe op le standing acr oss the street, “ Watch my house so it doesn’t g et robbe d.” JA 146. Te sti mony

a t tr ia l show e d tha t the 12 15 Pa g e Str e e t re sid e nc e wa s th e pr op e rt y of Anne ssa B uc ha na n, Ki ng ’s nie c e . B uc ha

na n r e nte d the re sid e nc e ou t, b ut t e na nts pa id t he ir ow n u til iti e s. After Buc hanan move d to Colum bus, h er m other, Cathy Nichols (King ’s sister), took over
re s p o n s i b ility

for the Pag e Stree t house. One te nant was Jackie Weave r, anothe r one of King ’s sisters, who moved out in 2005. Weaver was una ble to move her

appliance s at the time she moved
ou t, so she a sk e d Kin g to watc h he r ap pli anc e s and he r dog
. Wea ve r al so ma de arr ang e me nts wi th a subseque nt tenant of the 1215 Pag e Stree t residenc e, B enjamin Say en, that he c oul d use her appliance s if the dog could stay in the backyard. When Weave r moved out, King clea ned the house , watche d Buc hanan’ s car , chec ked on Weave r’s a ppliances, a

nd car ed for her dog
. Although K ingNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 4 - never lived at or re nted the 1215 Pag e Street residenc e and lived with his sister, Cathy Nichols, at 91 5 Pe c k f

ro m 20 02 un til his tr ia l, it is un dis pu te d th a t he vis ite d th e Pa g e Str e e t r e sid e nc e on a da ily ba sis
. The most rec ent tenant was Say en, who went to ja il on Dec ember 27, 2005, a month befor e the sea rch a nd arr est of King
. Say en was in continuous custody from the time of his ar

rest until at least the time of King ’s trial. Employ ees f rom Columbi a Gas and Toledo Edison testified that Say en opened utility

acc ounts in his name for the house at 1215 Pag e Stree t in Dece mber 2005. No pa y me nts we re e ve r m a de on Say e n’ s u til ity

a c c ounts
. At the close of

the Gover

nment’s pr oofs, King moved for a cquittal due to insufficie nt evidenc e on both the felon-in- possession count, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1), a nd the count for

possession with intent to dis tribute sevente en g rams of c rac k coca ine, 21 U.S.C. § 8 4 1 (a) (1), ( b)(1) (B ). The dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d the mot ion
. Ki ng the n put on se ve ra l def e ns e wi tne sse s. At

the c los e of

pr oo fs , the dis tr ic t c ourt

ins tr uc te d th e jur

y . T he jur

y su bs e qu e ntl y

c on vic te d K ingon

bo th c ounts
. The probation office pr epar ed a prese ntence repor t. Using the 2006 edition of the Guidelines Manual , the probation office c alculate d a base-off ense level of t wenty six
. Two l evels were a dded for possessinga fire arm, makingthe offe nse leve l twenty eig ht. B eca

use King had pre viously

been convicted of

ag g ravated robber

y , arme d bank robber

y , and robbe ry

with firea

rms, he qualifie d as an
arme d car eer criminal within the meaningof U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4, a nd the offe nse leve l was enha nced t o t h i rt y fo u r. Ki n g’s cr i m i n al h i s t o ry p l ac ed h i m i nC at ego ry VI. T h e r es u l t i n g Gu i d el i n es ra n ge of imp ri so nme nt w a s 2 62 to 3 27 mon ths
.No. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 5 - Ki ngwa s re pr e se nte d by le g a l couns e l at sen te nc ing
. Ki ng so ug ht a se nte nc e of

18 0 mo nth s, the mandator

y minimum sentenc e he fac ed as a result of the f

elon-in-possession convic tion. King argued that g iven hi s ag e, there was a reduce d likelihood that he would commit crimes in the f uture. Moreove r, with a sente nce of 180 months, he would have hope of leaving prison, there by promoting the intere st of reha

bilitation. He also pointed out that he suffe red from diabetes. The district cour t reje cted King ’s arguments, explaining that the defe ndant was a classic rec idivist who h ad “not lear ned fr om his own history ,” that fifty -seve n y ear s old was not such an a dvance d ag e to re quire a sentenc e below the advisory Guidelines rang e, and that firea rms wer e invol ved in a majority of the de fe nd ant’ s p ri or

c on vic tio ns . JA 1 95 -9 6. Th e dis tr ic t court the n s e nte nc e d K ingto 2 64 mon ths in p r i s o no ne a c h c o u n t , t o b e s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y.

II A. Suf

fi ciency of the Evidence 1. F ederal Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 29 I n his first claim of er

ror, King argues that the district c ourt abused its discr etion in denying his moti on for a cquittal for insuff icient evidenc e on both the fe lon-in-possession co u n t and the
na rc oti c s cou

nt. I n his se c on d cla im of e rr or , Kin g c on te nd s tha t the re wa s insu ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to convict him of either offe nse. The se cond cla im, however , is not accompa nied by any independe nt analy sis. Bec ause the ap p el late standa rd of r eview of

a district cour

t’s denial of a

motion for acquittal under

Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a) for lack of sufficient evidenc e is identicalNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 6 - to the s tandar d for an independe nt appellate claim of insuffic ient evidenc e, United States v. Abner , 35 F.3d 251, 253 ( 6th Cir. 1994), we re view tog ether King ’s first and se cond cla ims of error
. Rule 29(a) provides, “A fter the g overnme nt closes its evidence or af ter the c lose of all the evidenc e, the c ourt on the defe ndant’s motion mus t enter a judgme nt of ac quittal of any offe nse for which the e vidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” I n revie wing King’s cl ai m t h at t he district court abuse d its discretion when it de nied his Rule 29 motion, we revie w his motion de novo and examine the evidenc e in the light most fa vorable to the Gover

nment to determine w hether any
ratio na l tr ie r o f fa c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d th e e sse nti a l e le me nts of the c ri me be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t. United States v. Grubbs , 506 F.3d 434, 438 ( 6th Cir. 2007). We can reve rse a judgme nt based on a finding of insufficie nt evidence only if the judg ment is not supported by substantial and compete nt evidenc e upon the r ecor d as a w hole. Id . We mus t make all reas on able i nf e re nc e s a nd c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns in s up po rt of the g uil ty

ve rd ic ts . United States v. Newsom , 4 52 F .3 d 5 93 , 6 08 (6 th Cir. 2006).

2. Constructive P ossession There are three elem ents to the offe nse of be ing a felon in possession of a f irea rm: (a) the defe ndant had a previous fe lony conviction; (b) the de fenda nt knowingly

possessed the f

irea rm sp e c if ie d in the ind ic tme nt; and (c ) t

he fi re arm

tr a ve le d in

or a ff e c te d in te rs ta te c omm e rc e . 1 8 U .S. C. § 9 22 (g ); Un ite d S

tat es v . Ca mp be ll , 5 4 9 F
. 3 d 3 6 4 , 3 7 4 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. T h e p art i e s s t i p u l a t e d to the fi rst an d th ir d e le me nts —th e on ly e le me nt at is su e duri ngtr ia l w a s w he the r K ingkn ow ing ly po sse sse d th e fi re arm . I t is fu rt he r und isp ute d tha t Kingwa s n ot i n a c tua l po sse ssi on of the fi re a rm ,No. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 7 - so t h e c l a i m o f

e r r o r b o i l s d o w nt o w h e t h e r

t h e r e w a s s u f

f i c i e n te v i d e n c e t h a th e c o n s t r u c t i v e ly possessed the f

irea rm. Grubbs , 506 F.3d at 439 ( explaining that a felon-in- possession c onviction can be sust ained by a showing of actua l or construc tive possession). Possession can be pr oven by either direc t or circ umstantial evidence
. Newsom , 452 F.3d at 609. As fo r t he na rc oti c s c ount, the re are a lso thr e e e lemen ts fo r p os se ssi on wi th i nte nt t o dis tr ibute : ( a ) t

he de fe nd ant k

no wi ng ly (b) po sse sse d a c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e (c ) w iththe int e nt t o distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a )(1) , (b)( 1)(B ). On appea l, K ing argues that he did not have a ctual or constructive posse ssion of t h e n ar co t i cs. The G overnme nt does not contend that he had ac tual possession, so this claim also boils down t o whether there was sufficient evidence of constructive po sse ssi on

to c on vic t K ingof

the na rc oti c s c ount. Constructive possession exi sts wh er e the defenda nt “does not have possession but inst ead know in g ly h a s th e p o w e r an d in te n ti o n a t a g iv e n ti me to e xe r c is e d o mi n io n an d c o n tr o l o v e r an object, either

direc tly or throug h others.” Cam pb e ll , 5 4 9 F
. 3 d

a t 3 7 4 ( in te r

n a l q u o tati o nma

rks omitted). Howeve r, “[p]resence alone ne ar a g un . . . does not show the re quisite knowledg e, powe r, or intention to ex erc ise control over the g un to prove c onstructive possession.” Unit ed S t a tes v. Ar no ld , 486 F.3d 177, 183 (6th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (interna l citation and quotation marks omitted).

“ Othe r i nc ri min a tin g e vid e nc e mus t su pp le me nt a

de fe nd ant’ s p ro ximity

to a fi re arm in o rd e r t o ti p the sca le in favor

of construc tive possession.” Cam pb e ll , 549 F.3d at 374 (citation omitted). Consequently , “evide nce of some other factor—inc luding connection with a gun, proof of motive, a g esture implying c ontrol, evasive c onduct, o r a s t atement indicating involvement in an enter prise—couple d with prox imity may suffice .” Newsom , 452 F.3d at 610 (citation omitted). TheNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 8 - evidenc e nee d not be over whelming , in the view of the appellate court, to uphold a jury ’s finding of g uilt. This court has rec og nized that “the j u ry co uld have dr awn diff ere nt infere nces f

rom [the g overnme nt’s] evidence, a nd [t he court’s] mandate is to aff irm when the jury ’s choice was a rational one.” United States v. Mac key , 249 F. App’ x 420, 424 (6th Cir. 2007) (interna l quot at i o n marks omitted, emphasis added)
. I n atta c kin g his fe lon -i n- po sses sio n a nd na rc oti c s c on vic tio ns , K ingpo int s to the same evidenc e or la ck thereof to show that there was insuffic ient evidenc e of posse ssion. He points out that there was testim ony that he was ly ing fac e down in the l iving room when off icer s entere d the residenc e and that the firea rm and drugs were found i n an adjoining bedroom. Another pe rson was
a lso in t he re sid e nc e wh e n o ff

ic e rs e nte re d. A thir d pe rs on ha d va c a te d the re sid e nc e a bo ut a mon th be fo re the search, and

se ve ra l of

the uti lity

bil ls w e re sti ll i n th a t pe rs on ’s name . N o f ing e rp ri nts
wer e found on the firea

rm or the na

rcotics. Kingcontends that he was at the 1215 Pag e re sidence to walk his sister’s dogs. He arg ues t hat he ne ver e x erc ised dominion or control over the residenc e, the fire ar m , or the drug s, and that the Gove rnment’s e vidence of construc tive possession was insufficient to show other wise. King relies he avily

upon this court’s dec ision in Un ite d S tat es v. B e v e rly , 7 50 F .2 d 3 4 ( 6th Cir. 1984). I n that case , the defe ndant was standing near a tra shcan in a

kitchen duringthe execution of a sear ch war

rant; the defe ndant did not live in the residence
. Id. at 35. The trashcan contained two firea rms, one of w hich had the de fenda nt’s fing erprint on it. Id. at 35-36. The defe ndant was convicted of

possession of a fir ea rm . This court held that the e vidence was insuffic ient for
c on vic tio n b e c a

us e the re wa s n o e vid e nc e that the de fe nd ant c on tr oll e d the kit c he n. Th e c ourt sa idNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 9 - that the evidenc e showe d “only that [defendant] was in the ki tchen of [a third person’s] residenc e, that [de fe nd ant] w a s st and ingc los e to a wa ste ba sk e t wh ic h c on ta ine d tw o gun s, and that [de fe nd a nt] had at some point touche d one of the g uns.” Id. at 37. Th is ca se is d ist inguis ha

ble fr om Be v e rly
. First, one of the witnesses at the sce ne testified that King told him t hat t he bedroom was his. King went to the residence da ily to car e for

his sist er’ s dog and to che ck on the a

ppliances. A t the time of the sea rch, there was no third person living in the residenc e. More over, K ing told a detective that he had a narc otic in his coat in the bedroom, a nd the
narc otic was subseque ntly found there . Also found i n the bedr oom were presc ription drug bottles and a n e mp ty b o x o f s y

r in g e s w it

h K in g ’ s n a me o n th e m; a s e t o f k e y s to th e f ront door of the
re sid e nc e ; and

a ba nk de po sit sli p to Ki ng ’s a c c ount. B a se d on this e vid e nc e , a r e a so na ble jur y c ou ld conclude that King had dominion over t he bedr oom where the fire arm a nd narc otics were found, unlike the kitchen whe re the firea rms wer e found in Be v e rly
. I n addition, there w as evide nce that King kne w the conte nts of the bedroom and re sidence
. Ag a in, Ki nga dmi tte d th a t he ha d a na rc oti c in his c oat po c ke t and that the c oat wa s in the be dr oo m. Whe n a sk e d w he the r t

he re we re any

mor e fi re arm s in

the re side nce, Ki ng ans we re d “ no .” Th e se statements prove d to be ac curate. Finally , Detec tive Scoble testified that King told him t hat King had bee n selling dr ug s befor e the detec tive had eve n been in tra ining. The jury could infer from this that King had knowledg e of
and ha d p art ic ipate d in

pa st n arc oti c tr affi ckin g a c tiv ity . G ive n th e e vid e nc e of Ki ng ’s pr oximi ty t o t h e b ed ro o m , d o m i n i o no f t h e r o o m , kn o wl ed ge o f t h e c o n t en t s o f t h e r es i d en ce , an d kn o wl ed ge of and pa rt ic ipatio n in

pa st n arc oti c dis tr ibutio n, the jur y c ou ld c on c lud e tha

t K in g k no wi ng lyNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

A re view of the Detec tive’s backg round confirms that he was well-qua lified to testify about drug 1 investigations and para

pherna lia. - 10 - po sse sse d th e fi re arm

and na rc oti c s. Although K ing points t o testimony that he did not live at the re sidence and that anothe r pe rs on ha d b e e n li vin g the re a

mon th befo re th e se arc h, e vid e nc e of inn oc e nc e is n ot e no ug h to
ov e rt ur n a c on vic tio n s o lo nga s th e re is e no ug h c ounte rv a ili ng e vid e nc e of g uil t fo r a jur y to c ho os e rationally in favor of that conviction. Her e, there was suff icient evidenc e that Kingpossessed the firea rm and na rcotics. Ac cording ly , we r ejec t King’ s first two claims of er ror.

B. De te c ti ve Sc obl e King raises two claims of error with reg ard to Detec tive Scoble as a witness. King contends that the district court c ommitt ed re versible e rror by desig nating Detec tive Scoble as a n expert witness in the presence of t he jury in violation of t his court’s directive in United States v. J ohnson , 48 8 F .3 d 6 90 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) . H e fu rt he r argues th at Det e c tiv e Sc ob le imp e rm iss ibl y g a ve his op ini on on on e of the ult imate qu e sti on s o f f a c t—w he the r K ingpo sse sse d the fi re arm and na rc oti c s. He doe s not, however , argue that the district c o u rt abused its discre tion in finding that De tective Sc ob le wa s q

ua lif ie d to be an e xpe rt

wi tne ss. 1

1. Designation as an Expert in F ront of the JuryNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 11 - Prior to any

substantive testimony , the Gover nment pos ed a ser ies of qualify ing a nd foundational que stions to Detective Scoble. At the conclusion of these questions, the following colloquy occur red: MR. W EL DON: Your

Honor, at this t ime I ’d move The Court to declar e that Detec tive Br ent Scoble is an e x pert in t h e fi eld of na rcotics investig ations and para phenelia [sic] pursuant to the Fe dera l Rules of Evidence 702. MR. KI NG: I ’d like to note an obje ction, Your Honor
. TH E CO UR T: Ithi nk

in t he fi e ld o f inv e sti g a tio n and po lic e wo rk c on ne c te d w ith that investigation -- MR. W EL DON: Tha

nk y ou, Your Honor
. THE COURT:

-- t h e C ourt will treat him as an e x pert ove r the objec tion of de fe nd ant. MR. W EL DON: Tha

nk y ou, Your Honor
. J A 114-15. While King did not specify whether he was objecting to Detec tive Scoble as a n expert witness or, rather, whe ther he was objec ting to t h e Go v ernment’s reque st to so designate the de te c tiv e in ope n co ur

t, t he Go ve rnme nt d oe s n ot c on te st that K ingpr e se rv e d h is c la im f or a pp e a l. I n Johnson , this court stated that district courts should not desig nate a police off

icer as an “expert” be fore the jury . 488 F.3d at 697. The cour t expl ained: When a cour

t cer tifies that a witness is an e x pert, it lends a note of appro v al t o the witness that inordinately

enhanc es the witness’s statur e and de trac ts from the cour t’s ne utr a lity and de ta c hme nt. “ Exc e pt in ru lin g on an ob je c tio n, the c ourt

sh ou ld n ot, in the prese nce of

the jury , decla

re that a witness is qua lified as an e x pert or to r ender an expert opinion, and counse l should not ask the court to do so.” ABA Civil Tri al Practice Standard 17

(F e b. 19 98 ); se e als o J ones, Rosen, W egn er & Jones, Rutter Group Prac tice Guid e : F eder al Civil Trials & Evidenc e § 8:1548.1 (The Rutter Group 2006). Instead, the proponent of the w itness should pose qualifying a nd foundational questions and proc eed to e licit opinion t estimony
. I f the opponent objects, the c ourtNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 12 - should r ule on the objection, allowing the objector to pose v oir

dir e questions to the witness’s qualifications if necessa ry and re quested. See Berry v. McDe rmid Transp., Inc. , 2 00 5 WL 21 47 94 6, a t *4 (S.D . Ind . Aug .1 , 2 00 5) (s ta tin g that “ c ouns e l f or bo th parties should know be fore trial that the court does not ‘ce rtify ’ or de clar e witnesses to be ‘e x perts’ w hen ‘te ndere d’ as such at trial. I nstead, if there is a n objection to an offe red opinion, the court will consider the objection. The court’s jury instructions wi ll re fe r to ‘o pin ion wi tne sse s’ rathe r t ha n ‘ e xpe rt wi tne sse s’ ” ); see also Jordan v. Bishop, 2003 WL 1562747, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Fe b. 14, 2003). The court should then ru le on the ob je c tio n, “ to t

he e xten t pr a c tic a

ble , s o a s to pr e ve nt i na dmi ss ib le evidenc e fr om being sug g ested to the jury by any means.” Fe d. R. Evid. 103(c). Id. at 697-98. Ki ngha s n ot a

rgue d tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c omm itt e d a

str uc tur a l e rr or

re qu ir inga

uto ma tic
reve rsal. As the Supreme Court set forth in Brecht v . Abrahamson , “Tria l error occur s during the prese ntation of the ca se to the jury , and is amena ble to harmless-e rror

analy sis because it may

be qu anti ta tiv e ly

a sse sse d in the c on te xt o f o the r e vid e nc e pr e se nte d in or de r t o d e te rm ine the e ff e c t it ha d o n th e tr ia l.” 50 7 U .S. 61 9, 62 9 ( 19 93 ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s, c itatio ns , a

nd br a c ke ts omitted). The C ourt went on to explain, “At the other end of the spectrum of constitutional errors lie str uc tur a l de fe c ts in the c on sti tut ion of the tr ia l me c ha

nis m . . . . Th e e xiste nc e of su c h d e fe c ts . . . require s automatic re versa l of the conviction beca use they infec t the entire trial proce ss.” Id. at 6 2 9

- 3 0 ( in te r

n a l q u o tati o nma

r k s , c it a ti o n s , an d

f o o tn o te o mi tt e d )
. T he Johnson court did not consider the district court’s stateme nt in open court a s a structura l error beca use it su b j ec t ed the statement to plain-er

ror analy sis and af

firmed the c onviction. 488 F.3d at 698. L ikewise, in the two decisions cited in Johnson for support of the g ener al proposition, neither of the courts found the trial court’s a ction mandated r ever sal. See id. at 6 9 7 (c i t i n g United States v. Bartley , 855 F.2d 547, 552 (8 th C ir . 1 98 8) ; State v. Mc Kinney , 917 P.2d 1214, 1233 (Ariz. 1996)). Be cause the district court’sNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 13 - desig nation of the de tective a s an expert can be meaning fully revie wed ag ainst the proper ly admitted evidenc e and instruc tions of the district court, we revie w King ’s claim for harmless e rror . “The harmless-e rror

standard provides that if ‘one cannot sa y , with fair a ssuranc e, . . . that the judg ment was not substantially sway ed by the error, it is impossibl e to conclude that substantial rig hts were not affe cted.’ ” Mi k e ’s Tra in H

ou se , I nc . v . Li on e l, L .L. C. , 472 F.3d 398, 409-10 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g DePe w v . Anderson , 311 F.3d 742, 751 ( 6th Cir. 2002)). I t would have be en the be tte r p ra c tic e fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt to h a ve re fr a ine d f

ro m de c lari ngDe te c tiv e Sc ob le an e xpe rt in front of the jury , a p ro ce d u re that this court expressly cautioned a g ainst in Johnson . Howeve r, Johnson had not y et bee n issued. King ’s trial occurre d in November 2006, sever al months before this court issued Johnson (May 2007). More over, at the time of trial, this court’s own pattern jury instructions provided, “( 1) You have hea rd t h e t es timony

of __________, an e

x pe rt witness. An

e x pe rt witness has specia l know ledg e or e x perie nce that allows the witness to g ive an opinion. (2) You do not have to a cce pt an expe rt’s opinion. . . .” 6th Cir. P at t er n Crim. J ury I nstr. 7.03 Ex pert Testimony

(2005) ( emphasis adde d). The instruction was amended in De cembe r 2007 to ref lect the Johnson court’s disfavor of the use of “ expert” in open c ourt. See 6th Cir. Com m., cmt. to I nstr. 7.03 (2008 update ). The c urre nt mo d el i n s t ru ct i on omits t he ter m “expert.” See 6th

Cir . Patte rn

Cr im. Jury Ins t. 7 .0 3 O pin ion

Te sti mony

(2 00 8 u pd a te ); United States v. Nee ley , 308 F. App’x 870, 877 n.4 (6th Cir. 2009). The district cour

t’s desig nati o n wa s not perva sive, but rather an isolated stateme nt. The primary issue at trial wa s whether King possessed the f

irea rm and narcotics a

nd, while Dete ctive Scoble did offe r fa ct testimony on that issue, there wer e a number of other Gover nment witnessesNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 14 - who also testified on that ve ry issue. Thus, even if, as King contends, the di strict court’s de clar ation lent a note of approval t o Detec tive Scoble’s testimony , there was c onsiderable corr oborating direc t and cir cumstantial evidenc e fr om other sourc es on the c rucia l issue of possession. Wi thout more, it cannot be s ai d t h at the jury was substantially

sway ed by

the district court’s de clar ation and,
a c c or din g ly , a

ny e rr or by the dis tr ic t c ourt

wa s h arm le ss.

2. Testim ony Regarding Posse ssion Ki ngma int a ins that th e dis tr ic t c ourt pla inl y e rr e d in pe rm itt ingDe te c tiv e Sc ob le to s ta te his opinion that King “ possessed” the items, an ultimate fi n d ing of fac t to be left to the jury
. United Sta te s v . S waf for d , 385 F.3d 1026, 1029- 30 (6th Cir. 2004). Duringcross-e x amination, King asked Detec tive Scoble seve ral times whethe r anyone told the detec tive that “Kingwas in possession” of the fi re arm

or na rc oti c s. De te c tiv e Sc ob le ans we re d th at alt ho ugh no o ne tol d h im that th e ite ms
wer e on King ’s “spe cific pe rson,” the de tectiv e d i d wr i t e in hi s supplemental re port that King

“ po sse sse d” the m. JA 13 0. Af te r f ur the r q ue sti on ingon

the top ic by

Ki ng , D e te c tiv e Sc ob le clar ified, “A s I stated before, none of these items other than the money

was on y our spec ific per son, but all these items wer e in y our bedr oom along with y our belong ings w ith y our per sonal name on it.” J A 131. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt d i d

n o tp l a i n l y e r

r b y f a i l i n g t o s t r i k e s u a

s p o n t e t h e d e t e c t i v e ’ s t e s t i m o n y. Whil e the qu e sti on

of po sse ssi on

wa s o ne of

the ult imate fa c tua l e le me nts fo r t he jur y to ans we r, it is c le ar f ro m th e tr ans c ri pt t

hat De te c tiv e Sc ob le ’s te sti mony on po sse ssi on

wa s in re sp on se to King ’s question s . King can ha rdly now complain about testimony he dire ctly

elicited. De tectiveNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 15 - Scoble clar ified what he meant by the term “ possess,” i.e., that the f irea rm and na rcotics we re in the bedroom a long w ith other items that belong ed to King . Thus, the jury was not misled by

any unstated and possibly err oneous leg al standard packe d into the detec tive’s use of the term “ possess.” See U nited States v. Ahme d , 4 7 2 F
. 3 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 4 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( f

in d in g th a t i na

c lose case , a witness’s use of the term “f alsity ” did not convey

a l ega l o p i n i o n , but rather was simply

“a nontechnica l expression of her i n fo rm ed o p i nion”). Thus, we reje ct King ’s third claim of e rror and
a ff ir m hi s c on vic tio ns .

C. The Reasonableness of King’s Sentence L astly , King argues that his sentenc e wa s unrea sonable. He raises thre e spec ific g rounds for a lesser sentenc e: (1) the evidenc e at trial was insufficient to show that he possessed the firea rm or
n ar co t i cs ; (2 ) t h e d i s t ri ct co urt fa i l edt o gi v e p ro p er we i gh tt o Ki n g’s age at t h e t i m e o f s en t en ci n g;
an d ( 3 ) t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt w a s u n d e r t h e m i s t a k e n u n d e r s t an d i n g t h a tt h e G u i d e l i n e s w e r e m an d a t o r y. We reviewthe district court’s se ntencingjudgme nts u nder the defe rential “ abuse of discretion” sta

ndard, e valuating both their proce dural a nd substantive rea sonablene ss. G a ll v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 586, 591, 598 (2007). A district c ourt will be deeme d to ha ve abuse d its discretion i f i tco m m i t t eds i gn i fi ca n tp ro ce d u ra l erro r, “s u ch as fa i l i n g t o ca l cu l at e (o r i mp ro p er l y ca l cu l at i n g) th e G u id e li n e s r ang e , tr e a ti n g th e G u id e li n e s a s ma n d a to r y , f a il in g to c o n s id e r

th e [1 8 U
. S. C. ] § 35 53 (a ) f a c tor s, se le c tin g a

se nte nc e ba se d o n c le arl y

e r r on e ou s f a c ts, or fa ili ngto a de qu a te ly

e xpla in the chose n sentenc e—including an explanation for a ny deviation from the G uidelines rang e.” Id. at 59 7. “ I f pr oc e dura lly so un d, [the c ourt ] the n r e vie w[s ] the se nte nc e fo r s ub sta nti ve re a so na

ble ne ssNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 16 - under a n abuse- of-discr etion standard.” United St ates v. Haj-H amed , 549 F.3d 1020, 1024 ( 6th Cir. 2008) ( ci t i n g Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 59 8; Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct . 2456, 2465 (2007)) . “[A] proper ly ca l culated w ithin-Guidelines sentenc e will be af forde d a re buttable pre sumption of
rea sonablene ss on appea l.” Id. at 1 0 2 5 (c i t i n g Ri ta , 127 S. Ct . at 24 62 ; United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 ( 6th Cir. 2006)). K in g d o e s n o t c o n te n d

th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt e r

r e d in c a lc u lati n g th e G u id e li n e s rang e. A revie w of the district c ourt’s ca lculations confirms that it properly calc ulated a r ang e of 262 to 327 months. The district c ourt sentenc ed King to 264 months, so t he sente nce is a ffor ded a pr esumption of reasonable ness. The iss ue bec omes, then, whe ther Kinghas identified suff icient er rors to re but the pre sumption. King ’s first and third a sserted e rror s require littl e discussion. The jury fou n d that King possessed the f

irea rms and nar cotics beyond a re asonable doubt, and the district court was bound by the jury ’s finding s. Cf. United States v . Garner , 491 F.3d 532, 536- 37 (6th Cir. 2007), cert. de nied , 128 S. Ct . 1103 (2008). F urthermor e, the dist ri ct cour t clear ly understood that the Guide lines are advisory , as evide nced by the ver y statements that King relies upon f or t he contrary infere nce: “ The advisory g uideline is 262 to 327 months. And I will sentence within that guideline.” As to the seco n d asser

ted er ror, the district c ourt did not abuse its discretion in reje cting King ’s ag e as a

basis for se ntencingbelow the a dvisory Guidelines rang e. Under the Guidelines, a defe ndant’s ag e “is n o t o rd inarily rele vant in deter

mining whe ther a

depar ture is war

rante d.” U.S.S.G. § 5H1.1 (2006). I t is true that a distri ct co u rt “has a fre er ha nd to acc ount for the defe ndant’s ag e in its sentencingcalc ulus under § 3553(a )” than under the Guidelines. United StatesNo. 07-3655

United States v. King

- 17 - v . D av is , 537 F.3d 611, 617 (6th Cir.) (c iting Un ite d S tat es v . S mi th , 445 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Ci r. 2006)) , cert. de nied , 12 9 S. Ct. 75 2 ( 20 08 ); see also Haj-H amed , 549 F .3 d at 1 02 7 ( “ I t is c or re c t th a t, p os tBo ok e r, a district cour

t may vary a sentence to acc ount for a fac tor discourag ed by the Sentencing Com mis sio n. ” (i nte rn a l qu otatio n mark s omi tte d) ). Ye t, “ [t]o sa y that a dis tr ic t c ourt may acc ount fo r a de fe nd ant’ s a g e a t se nte nc ing , h owe ver, i s n ot t o s ay ” that a larg e do wnwa

rd va ri anc e is
nece ssarily

war rante d. Da v is , 537 F.3d at 617 (emphasis adde d). During the s entenc ing hear ing, the district court noted that King ’s ex tensive cr iminal hist ory sh ow e d th a t Ki ng ha d fa ile d to le arn fr om his ow n c ri min a l hi sto ry , le t a lon e the his tor y of oth e rs . The dist rict court also noted t hat King was sever al y ear s y oung er tha n the judg e and did not view the defe ndant’s age as a r eason to sente nce be low the Guidelines. The district court cle arly place d considera ble emphasis on the need to pr otect society from King beca use seve ral of his c onvictions (including the pre sent one) involved f irea rms. Although King argues t hat t he district cour t did not g ive ade quate we ight to his ag e, he ha s simply failed to show that the di strict court erre d by placing g re a te r em

ph a sis on the ri sk

of re c idi vis m and

on the thr e a t th a t K ingpo se d to so c ie ty tha n o n h is ag e.

III For the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM King ’s convictions and se ntence
.