Court Opinion

ID: 9964907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 14:01:11.717168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:47.648431
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11792    Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11792
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DAVID SCHIEFERLE,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20083-KMW-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11792     Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 05/01/2024    Page: 2 of 9

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11792

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Defendant-Appellant David Schieferle appeals his convic-
       tions for two counts of illegal importation of a firearm or ammuni-
       tion and one count of possession of an unregistered firearm. First,
       Schieferle contends that the district court erred in denying his mo-
       tion to suppress because law enforcement’s affidavit in support of
       the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause.
       Second, Schieferle argues that the district court erred by denying
       his motion for judgment of acquittal because the government
       failed to prove the elements of the charges. Lastly, Schieferle main-
       tains that the Second Amendment protects his right to possess fire-
       arm silencers. After careful review, we affirm.
                                        I.
              Because we write for the parties and assume their familiarity
       with the record, we set out only what is necessary to explain our
       decision.
              We review denials of motions to suppress under a mixed
       standard of review, “reviewing the district court’s findings of fact
       for clear error and its application of law to those facts de novo.”
       United States v. Anton, 546 F.3d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir. 2008) (quota-
       tion marks omitted). We also review de novo whether the
       good-faith exception to the warrant requirement rule applies to a
       particular case. United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th
       Cir. 2002).
USCA11 Case: 23-11792      Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 05/01/2024     Page: 3 of 9

       23-11792               Opinion of the Court                         3

               The Fourth Amendment requires that all search warrants be
       supported by probable cause and include a particularized descrip-
       tion of the place to be searched and the items to be seized. U.S.
       Const. amend. IV. To establish probable cause to search a resi-
       dence, the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant
       must “establish a connection between the defendant and the resi-
       dence to be searched and a link between the residence and any
       criminal activity.” Martin, 297 F.3d at 1314. “The information in
       the affidavit must also be fresh.” Id. “Generally, probable cause
       exists to support a search warrant when the totality of the circum-
       stances indicates that there is a fair probability of discovering con-
       traband.” Anton, 546 F.3d at 1358.
               Affidavits supporting search warrants are presumptively
       valid, and a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing un-
       less he makes a substantial preliminary showing. See Franks v. Del-
       aware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978). He must allege with specificity that
       (1) the affiant made false statements; (2) the false statements were
       made either intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth,
       not mere negligence or mistake; and (3) the false statements were
       necessary to the finding of probable cause. Id. at 171–72. The de-
       fendant’s allegations must be accompanied by a statement of rea-
       sons and affidavits or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses, or
       an explanation for their absence. Id. at 171. Material omissions,
       like material falsehoods, may give rise to entitlement to a Franks
       hearing. See Madiwale v. Savaiko, 117 F.3d 1321, 1326–27 (11th Cir.
       1997).
USCA11 Case: 23-11792      Document: 38-1       Date Filed: 05/01/2024     Page: 4 of 9

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11792

              When a warrant is found to be so deficient that it does not
       establish probable cause, the exclusionary rule requires that the
       fruits of an unconstitutional search not be used in a subsequent
       criminal prosecution. Martin, 297 F.3d at 1312. However, there is
       a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Id. The good-faith
       exception only requires evidence be excluded where the officers
       “were dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit or could not
       have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of
       probable cause.” Id. at 1313 (quotation marks omitted).
               There are four situations in which the good-faith exception
       will not apply: (1) where the magistrate or judge was misled by in-
       formation that the affiant knew was false or was reckless in deter-
       mining its veracity; (2) where the magistrate or judge wholly aban-
       doned his judicial role; (3) where the warrant is based on an affida-
       vit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief
       in its existence entirely unreasonable; and (4) where a warrant is so
       facially deficient that the executing officers cannot reasonably pre-
       sume its validity. United States v. Morales, 987 F.3d 966, 974 (11th
       Cir. 2021). If none of those circumstances exist, we proceed “to
       determine whether the executing officer reasonably relied upon
       the search warrant.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
               Here, the affidavit contained information sufficient to estab-
       lish probable cause. Anton, 546 F.3d at 1358. The affidavit stated
       that law enforcement intercepted two packages—shipped from
       China to Schieferle’s home—containing twelve suspected silenc-
       ers. It indicated that, in a seven-month period, Schieferle received
USCA11 Case: 23-11792      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 05/01/2024     Page: 5 of 9

       23-11792               Opinion of the Court                          5

       eighteen packages from China. Additionally, these packages origi-
       nated from addresses known to law enforcement to be associated
       with importing silencers.
              Even if this evidence was not sufficient to establish probable
       cause, the district court correctly determined in the alternative that
       the good-faith exception was applicable, as it was not so clearly
       lacking that it was unreasonable for officers to rely on it. Martin,
       297 F.3d at 1312. Further, none of the carveouts to the good-faith
       exception apply because Schieferle’s claim of false statements or
       material omissions was too conclusory. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171–
       72. Thus, we affirm in the district court’s denial of Schieferle’s sup-
       pression motion.
                                         II.
               We review de novo a district court’s denial of a judgment of
       acquittal on sufficiency of evidence grounds, considering the evi-
       dence in the light most favorable to the government, and drawing
       all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in its favor. United
       States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1296 (11th Cir. 2013). “A jury’s ver-
       dict cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the ev-
       idence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty
       beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1297 (quotation marks omit-
       ted). The evidence need not rule out every result except guilt, and
       the jury is free to choose amongst the reasonable conclusions stem-
       ming from the evidence presented at trial. Id. “[W]hen the gov-
       ernment relies on circumstantial evidence, reasonable inferences,
       not mere speculation, must support the conviction.” Id. (quotation
USCA11 Case: 23-11792         Document: 38-1            Date Filed: 05/01/2024      Page: 6 of 9

       6                          Opinion of the Court                       23-11792

       marks omitted). Further, “[t]he jury is free to believe the testimony
       of one witness and reject the testimony of another.” United States
       v. Murray, 527 F.2d 401, 410 (5th Cir. 1976). 1
              Section 921 defines “firearm” and includes in its definition
       “any firearm muffler or firearm silencer.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).
       Furthermore, section 921 defines a “firearm silencer” and “firearm
       muffler” as: “any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the
       report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts,
       designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fab-
       ricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended
       only for use in such assembly or fabrication.” Id. § 921(a)(25).
              Under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), the government must prove be-
       yond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the defendant possessed a firearm
       within the meaning of § 5845(a) 2 of the National Firearms Act
       (NFA); (2) the defendant knew the features of the firearm that
       brought it within the scope of the NFA; and (3) the firearm was not
       registered to the defendant. United States v. Wilson, 979 F.3d 889,
       903–04 (11th Cir. 2020). Although the requisite mens rea to prove
       a violation of § 5861(d) is knowledge, that mens rea does not attach
       to each element of that offense. Id. at 904. While the government
       must prove the fact that the weapon was unregistered and that the

       1 All decisions of the “old Fifth” Circuit handed down prior to the close of

       business on September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.
       Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
       2 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) defines a firearm, in part, as “any silencer (as defined in

       section 921 of title 18, United States Code).”
USCA11 Case: 23-11792      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 05/01/2024     Page: 7 of 9

       23-11792               Opinion of the Court                          7

       defendant was aware that his weapon possessed any of the features
       detailed in § 5845(a), it need not prove that the defendant knew the
       weapon was unregistered, that the defendant knew his possession
       of the weapon was unlawful, or that he knew what features define
       a firearm under § 5845(a). Id. at 904–05. The defendant need only
       be aware of one of the weapon’s features that brings it under the
       definition in § 5845(a), not each feature or particular feature. Id. at
       905.
             Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(l), it is unlawful for a person to
       “knowingly . . . import or bring into the United States . . . any fire-
       arm or ammunition.”
               Here, the district court did not err in denying Schieferle’s
       motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence, considered
       in the light most favorable to the government, supports the jury’s
       conviction on all counts. See Capers, 708 F.3d at 1296. Wayne
       Moser, an Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) fire-
       arms enforcement officer, testified as an expert that most of the de-
       vices needed a hole drilled through them to function, while two of
       the devices would be complete when assembled. He tested one of
       the devices and it reduced the sound of a firearm “by over 17 deci-
       bels,” so that hearing protection would no longer be needed when
       firing. Schieferle’s expert witness, Richard Vazquez, a former ATF
       firearms enforcement officer, also conceded that one of these de-
       vices could be used as a silencer without modification.
             The other devices also seemed to constitute silencers despite
       needing an additional hole to complete the design because a
USCA11 Case: 23-11792       Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 05/01/2024      Page: 8 of 9

       8                       Opinion of the Court                   23-11792

       silencer is defined as “any combination of parts, designed or rede-
       signed, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm
       silencer.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). Further, the jury reasonably con-
       cluded that Schieferle knew that the silencers originated outside
       the United States. The evidence, reasonably construed in the light
       most favorable to the government, supports the conclusion that
       Schieferle knew that the devices he possessed had the features of a
       silencer that subjected them to registration under the NFA and
       originated in China. See Wilson, 979 F.3d at 903–05. Thus, we af-
       firm the district court’s denial of Schieferle’s judgment of acquittal
       motion.
                                         III.
               We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. United
       States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2010). However, if
       such an argument is raised for the first time on appeal, we review
       it for plain error. See id. An error is only plain if it is contrary to a
       federal statute or on-point precedent in our circuit or the U.S. Su-
       preme Court. United States v. Hoffman, 710 F.3d 1228, 1232 (11th
       Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Neither we nor the Supreme Court have
       addressed whether silencers are protected by the Second Amend-
       ment.
               In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the Su-
       preme Court considered a Second Amendment challenge to New
       York’s licensing regime for the carrying of handguns in public. 597
       U.S. 1, 11–12 (2022). The Court explained the standard for applying
       the Second Amendment:
USCA11 Case: 23-11792     Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 05/01/2024     Page: 9 of 9

       23-11792               Opinion of the Court                        9

             When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an
             individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively
             protects that conduct. The government must then
             justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is con-
             sistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm
             regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the
             individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amend-
             ment’s “unqualified command.”
       Id. at 24 (quoting Konigsberg v. State Bar Cal., 366 U.S. 36, 50 n.10
       (1961)). Notably, the Court did not address whether the Second
       Amendment protects firearm silencers. See generally id.
              As an initial matter, plain error review applies because
       Schieferle raised his Second Amendment argument for the first
       time on appeal. Further, even assuming the district court erred by
       failing to sua sponte determine the constitutionality of § 5861(d)
       and § 922(l) under the Second Amendment, the error cannot be
       plain because neither we nor the Supreme Court have addressed
       the specific issue of whether silencers are protected by the Second
       Amendment. See Hoffman, 710 F.3d at 1232. To the extent Schief-
       erle relies on Bruen, that case did not directly address whether si-
       lencers constitute “arms” under the Second Amendment. See
       Bruen, 597 U.S. at 8–11. Accordingly, the district court did not
       plainly err by failing to sua sponte determine the constitutionality
       of either statute under the Second Amendment. As such, we af-
       firm.
             AFFIRMED.