United States v. Anthony Taylor, 800 F.3d 701

Background

Anthony Taylor was convicted by a jury of possession of a stolen firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(j)) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)); he received a 262‑month sentence under the ACCA enhancement.
Undercover informant Bridget Hayden arranged to buy firearms from Taylor, who produced a disassembled shotgun retrieved from Lee "Clyde" Smith’s home; police arrested Taylor in Hayden’s car with the shotgun on the floorboard next to his seat.
Smith testified the shotgun was his, that Taylor did not have permission to take it, and that Taylor gave him $30 (a repayment of a debt) when visiting the house; Taylor did not testify.
At trial the district court instructed the jury on both actual and constructive possession over the defense’s objection; defense moved for acquittal on the § 922(j) count arguing lack of knowledge the gun was stolen—motion denied.
At sentencing the PSR classified Taylor as an armed career criminal based on four prior violent felonies; defense argued for a downward variance partly on the ground that Taylor’s advanced age at release would reduce recidivism risk, but the court imposed the low end of the Guidelines (262 months).
Taylor also sought to hold his appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson (ACCA residual‑clause challenge); after Johnson the Sixth Circuit concluded Johnson did not affect Taylor’s ACCA enhancement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Taylor)	Held
1) Whether giving a constructive‑possession jury instruction was erroneous	Instruction was appropriate because the shotgun was not on Taylor’s physical person when found	Only actual possession was supported by evidence; constructive instruction was legally unwarranted	Court: Instruction was erroneous but harmless as a matter of law; conviction affirmed
2) Sufficiency of evidence for § 922(j) (possession of a stolen firearm)	Smith’s testimony that the shotgun was his, missing from his home, and taken by Taylor supported conviction	Taylor claimed he brokered a sale; evidence insufficient to show knowledge the gun was stolen	Court: Evidence was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the government; conviction stands
3) Procedural reasonableness of sentence—failure to explicitly address age/recidivism argument	Court sufficiently considered § 3553(a) factors and personal characteristics and gave a reasoned explanation	Failure to explicitly address age‑recidivism argument warrants reversal or remand	Court: Plain‑error review applies; objection not raised with requisite specificity; no plain error—sentence procedural reasonable
4) Effect of Johnson (ACCA residual‑clause invalidation) on Taylor’s ACCA enhancement	ACCA enhancement remains if other predicate convictions qualify under non‑residual clauses	Johnson might eliminate predicate status for some prior convictions that relied on the residual clause	Court: Johnson does not affect Taylor’s ACCA enhancement because his prior convictions qualify under the enumerated or use‑of‑force clauses; enhancement stands

Key Cases Cited

Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (an unsupported theory in jury instructions is harmless when another supported theory remains)
Mari v. United States, 47 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 1995) (harmless‑error analysis when jury receives an unsupported theory)
James v. United States, 819 F.2d 674 (6th Cir. 1987) (reversal for giving constructive‑possession instruction unsupported by record)
Gardner v. United States, 488 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2007) (definition of actual vs. constructive possession)
Mitchell v. United States, 743 F.3d 1054 (6th Cir.) (Tennessee robbery qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA independent of residual clause)
Caruthers v. United States, 458 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2006) (pre‑1989 Tennessee third‑degree burglary can qualify as generic burglary under ACCA)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)