United States v. Alcorn, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9726

Alcorn was charged with felon in possession of a firearm and manufacturing marijuana; he was found guilty on both counts by a jury.
The district court sentenced Alcorn to two concurrent twenty-month terms.
Officers observed marijuana plants from a helicopter spotter and later obtained Alcorn’s consent to search; he admitted growing marijuana and disclosed prior felony conviction.
On a later visit, a different officer learned of firearms and Alcorn showed a locked safe; he claimed there were two guns inside and pointed out a shotgun in a closet, which officers later seized.
Miranda warnings were given; Alcorn claimed the shotgun’s purchase involved his son-in-law, and the government probed the location of the gun during subsequent visits.
Alcorn challenged (1) the jury’s unanimity instruction, (2) requests for entrapment/estoppel defenses, and (3) his motion for acquittal based on entrapment; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the general unanimity instruction sufficient?	Alcorn argued a special unanimity instruction was required.	The government contends a general instruction suffices and there was no error.	No plain error; general unanimity instruction upheld.
Was there entitlement to entrapment or estoppel defenses?	Alcorn claimed entrapment by estoppel due to officer conduct.	Government contends no affirmative misconduct or assurance of legality.	Entitlement to entrapment/estoppel instruction denied; no affirmative government misconduct.

United States v. Brody, 486 F.2d 291 (8th Cir.1973) (on-or-about charge suffices; unanimity not required for exact date)
United States v. Howe, 538 F.3d 842 (8th Cir.2008) (possession date not a material element; other dates don’t create variance)
United States v. Villareal-Amarillas, 562 F.3d 892 (8th Cir.2009) (abrogation context for Howe cited)
United States v. Kempis-Bonola, 287 F.3d 699 (8th Cir.2002) (plain-error review framework for procedural challenges)
United States v. Benning, 248 F.3d 772 (8th Cir.2001) (entrapment by estoppel requires government affirmative misconduct)
United States v. Crump, 934 F.2d 947 (8th Cir.1991) (entrapment review standard in district court denial of acquittal)
Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (entrapment requires evidence permitting jury to find in defendant’s favor)
Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959) (misleading government conduct entitled to entrapment defense in specific context)