Court Opinion

ID: 9911290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 20:01:40.318325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:09.114088
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11030    Document: 63-1     Date Filed: 12/19/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11030
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       FAN YANG,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cr-00192-HES-LLL-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11030        Document: 63-1       Date Filed: 12/19/2023        Page: 2 of 3

       2                        Opinion of the Court                     22-11030

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Fan Yang appeals his convictions for conspiring to violate
       federal firearms laws, making false statements to a federally
       licensed firearms dealer, and making a false statement within the
       executive branch’s jurisdiction. He asserts the district court
       reversibly erred by precluding his willfulness defense and
       presentation of evidence thereof. After review, 1 we affirm.
               The district court did not preclude Yang’s willfulness
       defense—it allowed evidence and argument regarding Yang’s
       willfulness defense. Rather, the district court precluded evidence
       of selective prosecution related to Yang’s willfulness defense. The
       district court issued a detailed order denying in part and granting
       in part the Government’s motion in limine, detailing how Yang’s
       proﬀered evidence could be used in a willfulness defense, and the
       evidence that would be precluded as evidence of selective
       prosecution. “A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the
       merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion
       that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden
       by the Constitution.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463
       (1996); see also United States v. Jones, 52 F.3d 924, 927 (11th Cir. 1995)

       1 We review a district court’s grant of a government’s motion in limine for

       abuse of discretion. United States v. Thompson, 25 F.3d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir.
       1994). “Generally, courts should not prohibit a defendant from presenting a
       theory of defense to the jury.” Id. at 1564.
USCA11 Case: 22-11030      Document: 63-1       Date Filed: 12/19/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-11030                Opinion of the Court                          3

       (“[S]elective prosecution is a defect in the institution of the
       prosecution that has no bearing on the determination of factual
       guilt.”).
              The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting in
       part the Government’s motion in limine to preclude evidence and
       argument regarding selective prosecution. Because a selective
       prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits and is not a matter
       for the jury to decide, the district court did not improperly apply
       the law or err in its conclusion of law. See United States v. Smith, 459
       F.3d 1276, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006) (“An abuse of discretion arises when
       the district court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous ﬁnding
       of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of
       law to fact.” (quotation marks omitted)); Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 463.
       Selective prosecution remains a claim to hold the institutions of the
       legal system accountable for misconduct and has “no bearing on
       the determination of factual guilt”; therefore, the district court
       properly prohibited the evidence and argument of selective
       prosecution in Yang’s criminal jury trial. Jones, 52 F.3d at 927; see
       also Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 463. Thus, we aﬃrm.
              AFFIRMED.