Opinion ID: 4270652
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Firearm Phrase

Text: On appeal, Benitez argues that the district court constructively amended the indictment when it omitted the firearm phrase in the indictment from its jury instructions on Count One.9 As this Court has explained, a constructive amendment occurs “when the essential elements of the offense contained in the indictment are altered to broaden the possible bases for conviction beyond what is contained in the indictment.” United States v. Keller, 916 F.2d 628, 634 (11th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). For several reasons, the district court did not constructively amend the indictment by not including the firearm phrase in its jury instructions, which were the pattern jury instructions. First, the armed bank robbery statute does not include as an essential element that the defendant used a firearm to carry out the offense— only that he carried a dangerous weapon, which, as we have noted, can be a “toy gun.” See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d); Garrett, 3 F.3d at 391. Because the firearm phrase was not an element of the armed bank robbery offense, no constructive amendment occurred when the district court omitted it from its jury instructions. See United 9 This Court reviews de novo whether a district court’s jury instructions constructively amended the indictment. United States v. Gutierrez, 745 F.3d 463, 473 (11th Cir. 2014). 19 Case: 16-10476 Date Filed: 04/27/2018 Page: 20 of 24 States v. Deverso, 518 F.3d 1250, 1258 n.2 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Congress defines the elements of an offense, not the charging document.”). Stated another way, Benitez has not shown that the district court erred in giving the pattern jury instructions as to armed bank robbery, given that the type of dangerous weapon is not an element of that offense. Second, and most importantly, this is not a case where the government removed “firearm” from the indictment and then tried to prove that the defendant carried a knife, a bomb, or another dangerous weapon. Rather, throughout the pretrial proceedings and the trial itself, Benitez admitted that his weapon looked like a firearm and acknowledged that the only issue at trial was whether the firearm was a replica gun or a real gun. Because the removal of the firearm phrase from the jury instruction did not broaden the elements of the conviction under Count One, no constructive amendment occurred. Alternatively, Benitez argues that the district court’s omission of the firearm phrase from the jury instructions amounted to a variance from the indictment.10 See Keller, 916 F.2d at 634 (explaining that “[a] variance occurs when the facts proved at trial deviate from the facts contained in the indictment [even though] the 10 “The standard of review for whether there is a material variance between the allegations in the indictment and the facts established at trial is twofold: First, whether a material variance did occur, and, second, whether the defendant suffered substantial prejudice as a result.” United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1349 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Prince, 883 F.2d 953, 959 (11th Cir. 1989)). 20 Case: 16-10476 Date Filed: 04/27/2018 Page: 21 of 24 essential elements of the offense are the same”). A variance requires reversal only when the defendant can establish both that the variance was material and that his rights were substantially prejudiced thereby. Id. at 633; United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1349 (11th Cir. 1999). Benitez’s variance claim fails too. Simply put, there was no variance here between the indictment and the evidence at trial because both indicated that Benitez had a firearm of some sort (either real or a replica). In any event, even assuming a material variance occurred, Benitez has not shown the required prejudice. First, the district court put Benitez on notice at the July 13 status hearing that the firearm phrase was surplusage and not an element of the armed bank robbery offense. At that hearing, the district court gave Benitez the option of pleading guilty to Count One by admitting to “all of the elements up to and including that the weapon used in the bank robbery was a dangerous weapon” while still maintaining his plea of not guilty to carrying a real firearm as charged in Count Two. The district court’s statements were in agreement with the arguments of Benitez’s counsel at the June 4 change of plea hearing, during which Benitez’s counsel stated that Benitez would be willing to plead guilty to Count One if the firearm phrase were found to be surplusage. Because of the district court’s ruling at the pre-trial hearing, Benitez also knew that the government would not have to prove that Benitez used a real firearm in order to obtain a conviction on 21 Case: 16-10476 Date Filed: 04/27/2018 Page: 22 of 24 Count One. The district court did not err in concluding that Benitez was “clearly” on notice that the district court considered the firearm phrase to be surplusage. Benitez cannot now argue that he was disadvantaged by the district court’s not including the firearm phrase in the jury instructions as to Count One at trial. Because he suffered no prejudice, there was no material variance that would warrant a reversal.