Court Opinion

ID: 9369958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 15:00:55.817621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.283274
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10378    Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 02/10/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10378
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       ERIC TOLLEFSON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00025-LAG-TQL-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10378        Document: 28-1         Date Filed: 02/10/2023        Page: 2 of 9

       2                         Opinion of the Court                      22-10378

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Eric Tollefson, a federal prisoner, is serving a 33-month sen-
       tence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See 18 U.S.C.
       §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). He argues that the district court abused its
       discretion in denying his motion for a new trial because it violated
       Rule 30(b) when it provided the jury with a supplemental instruc-
       tion on constructive possession following his closing argument. Af-
       ter careful review, we affirm.1
                                              I
              We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for
       a new trial. See United States v. Anderson, 326 F.3d 1319, 1326
       (11th Cir. 2003). In order to enable counsel to intelligently argue
       the case to the jury, Rule 30 generally requires the trial court to
       inform counsel of its proposed action upon any requests concern-
       ing the jury charge prior to closing argument. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
       30(b); United States v. Clark, 732 F.2d 1536, 1541 (11th Cir. 1984).
       We require substantial compliance with Rule 30, and a violation

       1 Mr. Tollefson also argues that the district court’s supplemental instruction
       violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. See Appellant’s Gray Brief
       at 26-27. However, he did not raise a Sixth Amendment challenge below and
       does so here for this first time in his reply brief. Consequently, he abandoned
       any such argument. See United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 985 (11th Cir.
       2015).
USCA11 Case: 22-10378     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/10/2023    Page: 3 of 9

       22-10378               Opinion of the Court                        3

       will require reversal only where the defendant establishes preju-
       dice. See Clark, 732 F.2d at 1541. Reversal may be warranted
       “when the change in the instructions is substantial, when the
       judge’s instructions repudiate counsel’s argument, or when the
       judge’s instructions impair the effectiveness of the attorney’s argu-
       ment.” See id at 1541-42 (footnotes omitted).
              “At the same time, the court retains power [under Rule 30]
       to remedy omissions in pre-argument instructions or to add in-
       structions necessitated by the arguments.” United States v. Ander-
       son, 1 F.4th 1244, 1264 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing United States v.
       Pena, 897 F.2d 1075, 1084 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting from Rule 30
       advisory committee’s notes to 1987 amendments)), abrogated on
       other grounds by Coleman v. Singletary, 30 F.3d 1420 (11th Cir.
       1994)). The extent and character of supplemental instructions are
       within the sound discretion of the trial court. See United States v.
       Walther, 867 F.2d 1334, 1341 (11th Cir. 1989). That discretion is
       commensurate with the trial court’s “duty to guide the jury.”
       United States v. Joyner, 882 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing
       United States v. Anderson, 629 F.2d 1044, 1048 (5th Cir. 1980)). See
       also United States v. Graham, 484 F.3d 413, 420-21 (6th Cir. 2007)
       (recognizing that “it is sometimes necessary and proper for the trial
       court to re-charge a jury to correct possible misunderstandings
       based on the original instruction given” and that the court has a
       duty “to instruct the jury on the law of the case”).
              To illustrate, in Pena, the defendant argued on appeal that
       the district court committed reversible error when it violated Rule
USCA11 Case: 22-10378     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/10/2023    Page: 4 of 9

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-10378

       30 by supplementing the parties’ agreed-upon instructions with a
       charge stating the correct legal meaning of a “place outside the
       United States.” Pena, 897 F.2d at 1084. We held that the supple-
       mental instruction was not erroneous because it was necessitated
       by defense counsel’s incorrect statement of law during closing ar-
       gument. See id. We reasoned that the supplemental instruction
       also did not substantially change the jury instructions and, to the
       extent that it repudiated or diminished the effectiveness of defense
       counsel’s argument, ignoring the misstatement “would have re-
       sulted in a verdict reached in contravention to the law.” See id. at
       1084-85. To that end, we recited our understanding that Rule 30
       does not “function as a limitation on the district court’s obligation
       to inform the jury of the law which properly governs the case,” or
       “empower counsel, through the mechanics of closing argument,
       either to dictate the law by which a verdict is reached or create a
       mistrial by erroneously stating the legal principles applicable to a
       given situation.” Id. at 1085.
                                        II
             At trial, the government presented evidence of firearms and
       ammunition found around Mr. Tollefson’s shared home and intro-
       duced a recorded phone call between Mr. Tollefson and his
       mother. On that call, Mr. Tollefson told his mother he had lost
       $50,000 when the government confiscated the firearms, which he
       was trying to “place . . . in the right hands” for his roommate and
       “other interested parties.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10378      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/10/2023     Page: 5 of 9

       22-10378                Opinion of the Court                         5

               During closing argument, the government’s theory of con-
       structive possession was based in part on this phone conversation,
       arguing that it evinced his ability and intent to exercise control over
       the firearms. Defense counsel argued the following in response:
              If I’ve got a buddy with a nice car and he says, hey,
              Michael do you know somebody that wants to buy
              this Camaro, and I say, sure, I know a guy that will
              buy this Camaro. Can I get a cut of it maybe? Sure,
              yeah, I’ll give you, you know, $500 if you find some-
              body to buy it. All right. And I call up Joe-Bob and
              tell Joe, hey, my buddy’s got this Camaro. Do you
              want to buy it. Sure, I’ll come over and take a look at
              it. I’ve never exercised physical control over my
              buddy’s Camaro. I acted as a middleman.
       See D.E. 93 at 17-18. Defense counsel continued that, at best, the
       government’s evidence showed that Mr. Tollefson was a mere
       middleman without the intention to exercise physical control over
       the firearms. This argument ultimately prompted the district court
       to provide a supplemental instruction on constructive possession
       over Mr. Tollefson’s objection. He takes issue with the final sen-
       tence of that instruction: “A person may be found to have had the
       intent to exercise control over an item where the person orches-
       trated and participated in the sale of the item even if the person
       never intended to have physical possession of the item.” D.E. 93 at
       43.
             Mr. Tollefson couches the issue on appeal as a violation of
       Rule 30. Viewed through that lens, the district court’s action was
USCA11 Case: 22-10378     Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 02/10/2023    Page: 6 of 9

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-10378

       proper if the supplemental instruction was necessitated by closing
       argument. See Anderson, 1 F.4th at 1264. That is, if Mr. Tollefson
       misstated the law of constructive possession during his closing ar-
       gument, then the district court did not err in providing a supple-
       mental instruction on constructive possession.
               As an initial matter, Mr. Tollefson insists that because his
       closing argument was a mere factual hypothetical in response to
       the government’s theory, he could not have misstated the law. But
       the superficial distinction he makes between facts and law is of no
       consequence. To the jury, the likely implication of Mr. Tollefson’s
       hypothetical scenario was that under those or analogous facts a de-
       fendant’s conduct would not qualify as constructive possession as
       a matter of law. An argument based in fact necessarily draws the
       mind to the law, whereas an argument based in law necessarily
       draws the mind to the facts. The two are intertwined. Therefore,
       if the jury could improperly take from his argument a course of
       conduct that would not constitute constructive possession as a
       matter of law when in fact it could, he misstated the law. The dis-
       trict court determined that was the case here. See D.E. 93 at 32-33.
              We see no abuse of discretion by the district court. The
       problem with Mr. Tollefson’s hypothetical was that it posited as
       non-culpable a scenario that could result in criminal liability. For
       example, in United States v. Virciglio, 441 F.2d 1295, 1297-98 (5th
       Cir. 1971), we concluded that the defendant was in constructive
       possession of a firearm where he negotiated and “planned the sale,”
       “[t]here would have been no sale without him[,]” and he “accepted
USCA11 Case: 22-10378      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 02/10/2023     Page: 7 of 9

       22-10378                Opinion of the Court                         7

       and retained part of the purchase price.” Based on Virciglio, a felon
       who, instead of a car, orchestrated a firearm deal under the facts of
       Mr. Tollefson’s hypothetical—by discussing the sale with the seller,
       finding a buyer, and taking a cut of the deal—could be found by a
       jury to be in construction possession of a firearm. See id. at 1298.
       See also United States v. Badali, 670 F. App’x 677, 679 (11th Cir.
       2016) (unpublished) (sufficient evidence of constructive possession
       where a defendant merely “organized and arranged for the sale of
       the firearm”). Other circuits are in accord. See, e.g., United States
       v. Nungaray, 697 F.3d 1114, 1116-19 (9th Cir. 2012) (sufficient evi-
       dence supported constructive possession where the defendant set
       up the deal, assured delivery of the guns, and received payment,
       such that “he was no mere intermediary . . . but rather an active
       participant . . . in the sale and delivery”) (citation omitted); United
       States v. Miller, 560 F.3d 751, 753 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court did
       not err in finding defendant constructively possessed firearms that
       were held, and transferred to third parties, by her brothers at her
       direction).
              Mr. Tollefson’s reliance on Henderson v. United States, 575
       U.S. 622 (2015) is misplaced. In Henderson, the Supreme Court
       held that a court-supervised transfer of firearms that prevents a
       felon from later exercising control over those weapons cannot sup-
       port a conviction under § 922(g). See 575 U.S. at 630-31. It rea-
       soned that such a transfer, which involves a felon’s request to trans-
       fer guns in the possession of the government to an uninterested
       third party, does not implicate the felon’s right of possession
USCA11 Case: 22-10378      Document: 28-1       Date Filed: 02/10/2023     Page: 8 of 9

       8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-10378

       “before, during, or after the disposition,’ but rather, only the felon’s
       “right merely to sell or otherwise dispose of [firearms].” See id. at
       628 n.3, 630-31. Henderson absolves a felon who takes a wholly
       passive role in a firearms transaction but does not absolve a felon
       who, for example, “negotiated and arranged a sale of guns while
       using a third party to make the physical handoff to the buyer.” Id.
       at 628 n.3 (“The felon’s management of the sale thus exemplified,
       and served as evidence of, his broader command over the guns’ lo-
       cation and use—the very hallmark of possession.”). And the indi-
       vidual in Mr. Tollefson’s hypothetical scenario was far from pas-
       sively involved in the transaction. Henderson, therefore, does not
       preclude a finding of constructive possession where a felon orches-
       trates a sale by endeavoring to pair a buyer and a seller and taking
       a cut of the sale.
              In sum, the law provides that a middleman can in fact satisfy
       the element of constructive possession. Accordingly, Mr.
       Tollefson’s hypothetical scenario did in fact present a factual cir-
       cumstance that could result in a finding of constructive possession,
       and he therefore misstated the law. That misstatement permitted
       a supplemental instruction. See Anderson, 1 F.4th at 1264. To the
       extent that any such instruction repudiated or impaired the effec-
       tiveness of Mr. Tollefson’s closing argument, defense counsel does
       not have free reign “to dictate the law by which a verdict is
       reached,” particularly when that law is incorrect. See Pena, 897
       F.2d at 1084. Nor can it be said that providing additional clarifica-
       tion on the boundaries of constructive possession is a substantial
USCA11 Case: 22-10378      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 02/10/2023     Page: 9 of 9

       22-10378               Opinion of the Court                         9

       change. See id. Consequently, the district court did not err in
       providing the jury a supplemental instruction on constructive pos-
       session and in turn, did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr.
       Tollefson’s motion for a new trial.
               To the extent that Mr. Tollefson independently challenges
       the substance of the district court’s supplemental instruction, we
       reject that contention. See Virciglio, 441 F.2d at 1297-98. We also
       note that it did not matter whether Mr. Tollefson’s hypothetical
       scenario was consistent with the original jury instruction because,
       as that hypothetical exposed, the original instruction contained
       gaps in the law that a defendant could exploit to secure an acquittal.
       See Pena, 897 F.2d at 1085. The district court therefore had the
       authority to provide the jury with a correct statement of the law,
       and it did just that by providing the supplemental instruction at is-
       sue. See Graham, 484 F.3d at 420-21. Nor does our decision re-
       strain a party’s ability to make fact-based arguments. A party may
       do so freely so long as its arguments comport with the boundaries
       of the law.
                                        III
             The district court’s denial of Mr. Tollefson’s motion for a
       new trial is affirmed.
             AFFIRMED.