2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-15-2010 

# U SA v . Ja son Loft on P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2645

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . J as on L oft on" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 612. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/612NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 08- 2645

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AS ON L OF T ON, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 2- 06- cr - 00304- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam H . W a lls

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember14, 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , F IS H E R a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: Sept ember15, 2010)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . J as on L oft on appea l s hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya per s on p r e v i o u s l yc o n v i c t e d o f a f e l o n y . W e wi l l a f

f i r m.T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. I n J anuary2006, pol i ce of fi cer s i n J er s eyC i t y , N ew J er s ey , obs erved Loft on engage d i n w hatt heyper cei ved t o be s us pi ci ous act i vi t y , chas ed hi m aft erhe not i ced that h e w a s u n d e r o b se rv a tio n a n d ra n a w a y , an d a p p re h e n d e d h im sh o rtlyth e re a f ter . W h ile i n fl i ght , L oft on had di s car ded w hatturned outt o be a l oaded s hot gun w i t h a s aw ed- off barr el . L oft on w as t r ans por t ed t o a pol i ce s t at i on, w her e he s i gned a Mi r anda w ai verand admi t t ed t o havi ng pos s es s ed the s hot gun. I n Sept ember2007, L oft on w as char ged i n a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entw i t h pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya per s on pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a f e lo n yin v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) a n d p o ss e ss io n o f a n u n re g iste re d f

ire a rm in
v io latio n o f

2 6 U .S .C . § 5 8 6 1 (d ). In N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 , a ju ryf o u n d L o f to n g u iltyo f

b o th offe ns es . T he D i s t r i ctC our tt her eaf t ers ent ence d hi m t o concurr entpr i s on t erm s of 120
m o n th s f o r t h e § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) c o n v ic tio n a n d 4 8 m o n th s f o r t h e § 5 8 6 1 (d ) c o n v ic tio n . L o f to n h a s tim e lya p p e a led th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t b u t ch a llen g e s o n lyh is § 922( g) ( 1) convi ct i on. 1T he governm entas s er t s t hati tas ked Loft on t o s t i pul at e t o t he exi s t ence of a pr i or 2 fel onyconvi ct i on butt hatL oft on r efus ed. R u le 4 0 3 a u th o riz e s a d istric t co u rt to e x c lu d e e v id e n c e w h o se p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is 3 out w ei ghed by , among ot hert hi ngs , i t s pot ent i al t o unfai r l ypr ej udi ce the def endant . Fed. R . E v id . 4 0 3 ; U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

os bur gh , 6 0 2 F . 3 d 5 1 2 , 5 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). 3 II. T o p ro v e th a t L o f

to n w a s g u iltyo f

v io latin g § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d to
es t abl i s h t he fol l ow i ng el ement s : “( 1) that[Loft on] had pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of a
cr i m e puni s habl e byi m pr i s onm entfora t erm exce edi ng one y ear ; ( 2) that[Loft on] k n o w in g lyp o ss e ss e d a f ire a rm ; an d (3 ) th a t th e f ire a rm h a d p a ss e d in in ter sta te
comm er ce. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D odd , 225 F. 3d 340, 344 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . L oft on does not q u e stio n th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict w ith re sp e c t to th e se c o n d tw o e lem e n ts. In ste a d , h is
as s i gnm entof err orper t ai ns onl yt o the fi r s tel ement . Speci fi cal l y , he poi nt s t o t he governm ent ’ s i nt r oduct i on i nt o evi dence attr i al of notj us tone butthr ee pr i orfel ony convi ct i ons i n an ef

for tt o m eeti t s bur den of pr ovi ng thathe “ha d pr evi ous l ybeen
co n v ict ed o f a crim e p u n isha b le byim p ri so n m en t fo r a term ex ce ed ing o n e y ea r. ” In 2 L oft on’ s vi ew , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have us ed i t s author i t yunderFeder al R ul e of E v id e n c e 4 0 3 to re stric t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p ro f f e r to o n e p rio r c o n v ictio n to p ro v e its § 922( g) ( 1) char ge. 3 L o f to n c o n c e d e s th a t h e d id n o t o b jec t to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p ro f f e r a t trial a n d th a t,
a s a c o n s e q u e n c e , o u r r e v ie w is o n ly f o r p la in e rr o r. See , e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Leo , 941 F .2 d 1 8 1 , 1 9 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). A c c o rd in g ly , to p re v a il o n a p p e a l L o f to n m u st s h o w th a t:L oft on pl ace s gr eatw ei ghton a non- pr ece dent i al opi ni on of thi s C our tw her e the 4 panel agr eed w i t h t he def endantt hat , as a gene r al m att er , pr os ecut or s need not“pi l e on” pr i orconvi ct i ons t o m eett hei rbur den of pr oof. W hi l e Loft on i s notpr ecl uded fr om 4 ( 1) t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o su a sp o n te r es t r i ctthe governm ent ’ s pr offe rcons t i tut ed
e rr o r; (2 ) t h e e rr o r w a s p la in ; a n d (3 ) t h e e rr o r a f f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U ni t ed S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 595 F. 3d 498, 519 ( 3d C i r . 2010) . L oft on carr i es the bur den of maki ng th is s h o w in g . U

nited S tates v. B arbo sa , 2 7 1 F . 3 d 4 3 8 , 4 5 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . I f we det erm i ne thathe has done s o, w e mayi n ourdi s cr et i on gr anthi m r el i ef i f w e fi nd thatt he
err orhe compl ai ns of “s er i ous l yaff ect [ed] the fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Br o wn , 595 F. 3d at519- 20 ( quot at i on m arks , ot heral t er at i on and cit ati o n o m itted). L o fto n sp en d s the li o n ’s sh are o f h is en erg yfo cu sing o n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fa il u re t o conductan on- t he- r ecor d bal anci ng t es tunderR ul e 403, the r es ul tof w hi ch, he cont ends , s houl d have be en the exc l us i on of tw o of hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons . A s not ed, L oft on m us tdemonstr at e t o us t hatthe non- excl us i on of tw o of hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons cons t i tut ed pl ai n err or . “A n err ori s pl ai n i f i ti s ‘ cl ear ’ or‘ obvi ous ’ undercurr entl aw . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Tann , 577 F. 3d 533, 537 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 4 (1 9 9 3 )). L o f to n h a s n o t re f

e rre d u s to a sin g le r e lev a n t leg a l au th o rity defi ni t i vel yhol di ng t hatt he governm ent ’ s i ntr oduct i on of m or e than one pr i orconvi ct i on to p rov e the firstelem en t of a § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ) ch arg e c o n sti tutes erro r per se , and w e know of
no s uch author i t y . A s s uch, he has fal l en fa rs hor tof hi s bur den of s how i ng thatthe 4c itin g th a t c a s e to u s , s ee F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 (a ), w e , o f c o u rs e , a re n o t b o u n d b yit, s ee T h ird C irc u it In ter n a l O p e ra tin g P ro c e d u re 5 .7 ; B e rn e C o rp . v. G o v ’t o f th e V irg in I s l ands , 5 7 0 F . 3 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 6 n . 1 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). F u rth erm o re, ev en if th at ca se w ere m andat or yauthor i t yi n t hi s ci r cui t , i tw oul d notcarr ythe dayforL oft on, as i tcomes now her e nea res t abl i s hi ng a rul e thatthe i ntr oduct i on of m or e than one pr i orfel ony convi ct i on i s nece s s ar i l yi m pr oper . Fors i m i l arr eas ons , L oft on’ s r el i ance on U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ei l and , 420 F. 3d 1062 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , and U n itedS ta tes v . B re itkr e u tz , 8 F. 3d 6 8 8 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), abr ogat ed on othergr ounds by O ld C hi ef v. U ni t ed Stat es , 51 9 U. S. 172 ( 1997) , does hi m l i t t l e good, as nei t herof thos e ca s es w as deci ded on pl ai n- err or r evi ew , bot h w er e r es ol ved bas ed on the pr eci s e fa ctual s cena r i os pr es ent ed, and nei t her s ugges t s t hatt he per se rul e L ofton u rges i n fac texis t s. 5 D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d e rro r, m u c h les s e rro r th a t is p lain , in a d m itt in g e v id e n c e o f h is th re e p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s . See U n itedS ta tes v . H

a rr is , 471 F. 3d 507, 512 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( no pl ai n err ori n t he abs ence of a de ci s i on fr om ei t herthe Supr eme C our torthi s C our ton the p re c ise q u e stio n p re se n ted ); U nited S tates v. C l ark , 237 F. 3d 293, 298- 99 ( 3d C i r . 2001) (n o p lain e rro r w h e re th e d e f e n d a n t co u ld p o in t to little c a se law d e c isiv e lysu p p o rtin g h is p o sitio n ); c

f. U n itedS ta tes v . V

iti llo , 490 F. 3d 314, 325 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( fi ndi ng pl ai n err or w her e, att he t i m e of tr i al , t hi s C our tas w el l as ot herci r cui t s had s quar el ydeci ded the issue in f av o r of the d ef en d an t) . E ven i f w e found pl ai n err oron thi s r ecor d, w e w oul d per cei ve no bas i s for ups et t i ng L oft on’ s convi ct i on. Fi r s t , the D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed the j ur or s on t he in f e re n c e s th e yc o u ld p e rm iss ib lyd ra w f ro m h is th re e p rio r c o n v ictio n s, e x p lain in g to t hem t hatt hos e convi ct i ons coul d notbe us ed t o fi nd L oft on gui l t yof the off ens es char ged i n t hi s cas e. W e or di nar i l ypr es um e thatj ur or s under s t and and f ol l ow in s tru c tio n s , s ee U

nited S tates v. L i bu rd , 607 F. 3d 339, 344 ( 3d C i r . 2010) , and w e s ee no6

r eas on t o abandon thatpr es um pt i on her e. A nd s econd, the evi dence of Loft on’ s gui l tw as su b stan ti al, co n sist ing o f th e p ri o r co n v ict ion s the m selv es, t esti m o n yfro m p o li ce o ff icers ab o u t L o fto n ’s ha v ing d iscard ed an o b ject w h il e f

leeing fro m the o ff

icers, and L o fto n ’s
o w n a d m is s io n th a t th a t o b je c t w a s in f

a c t th e f ir e a rm h e w a s c h a rg e d w ith p o s s e s s in g . See U nited S tates v. Ir izarry , 341 F. 3d 273, 298- 99 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( decl i ni ng t o r ever s e on p lai n -error g rou n d s “b ec au se o f th e o v erw h elm ing ev iden ce o f [ the d ef en d an t’ s] gu il t”). U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e fi nd i thi ghl yunl i kel ythatthe i ntr oduct i on of L oft on’ s t hr ee pr i orconvi ct i ons “af fec t ed the out come of t he . . . pr ocee di ngs . ” O l ano , 507 U . S. at734 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W e w oul d t her efor e dec l i ne t o exer ci s e ourdi s cr et i on in L o f to n ’s f a v o r e v e n a s s u m in g th e e x is te n c e o f p la in e rr o r. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. G or don , 290 F. 3d 539, 545 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( decl i ni ng t o exer ci s e di s cr et i on on pl ai n- err or r evi ew beca us e the err or“di d notpr ej udi ce the out come nordi d the err ors er i ous l yaff ect th e f a irn e ss , inte g rity , o r p u b lic re p u tatio n o f th e ju d icia l sy ste m ” (f

o o tn o te o m itt e d )); c

f. U n itedS ta tes v . O zc e lik , 527 F. 3d 88, 96 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( “W hi l e the C our tof A ppeal s has th e a u th o ri ty to o rd e r c o rr e c tio n w h e n [ th e p la in -e rr o r s ta n d a rd is ] m e t, i tis notr equi r ed t o d o so . ” (e m p h asis ad d ed an d q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted)). III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.