United States v. Bogle, 522 F. App'x 15

Background

Gary Bogle was convicted after a jury trial of possessing a firearm and ammunition after a felony and possessing body armor after a violent felony, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e) and §§ 931(a), 924(a)(7); sentenced to 262 months.
Counsel and Bogle filed challenges on appeal: waiver of Rule 410 protection, imposition of the 15-year ACCA minimum, and suppression of physical evidence from searches.
Pro se submissions asserted (among others) suppression of body armor, 922(g) constitutionality, subject-matter jurisdiction, necessity defense, Speedy Trial Act violation, and right to hybrid/self-representation.
District court denied suppression and held ACCA applied; found waiver of Rule 410 knowingly and voluntarily, and denied other motions.
On appeal, the Second Circuit reviews waiver, ACCA predicate predicates, suppression rulings, jurisdiction, Speedy Trial Act, and self-representation issues, and affirms.
Key evidentiary items involved live round, loaded handgun, magazine, and body armor recovered during traffic stop, inventory, and subsequent searches.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Rule 410 waiver knowingly and voluntarily made?	Bogle argues waiver was not knowing or voluntary.	Bogle contends waiver lacked proper awareness and coercion-free basis.	Waiver was knowing and voluntary.
Does ACCA apply based on prior convictions to impose a 15-year minimum?	Bogle challenges predicate violent felonies and application of ACCA.	Government asserts three qualifying violent felonies; proper statutory analysis.	ACCA applies; sentence enhanced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
Were the physical evidence searches improperly conducted and suppressible?	Arguments that searches were unlawful (stop, arrest, initial search) and suppressible.	Evidence obtained lawfully or via inevitable discovery; suppression not warranted.	Evidence admissible; suppression denied.
Was there a Speedy Trial Act violation requiring dismissal with prejudice?	Indictment delay so dismissal with prejudice should follow.	Delay justified; dismissal without prejudice appropriate to refile.	Dismissal without prejudice proper; not reversible error.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Lynch, 92 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1996) (clear-error standard for waivers of rights; reasonable view supports waiver)
United States v. Velez, 354 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (voluntariness of waiver requires free and deliberate choice)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (categorical approach to prior offenses for ACCA predicates)
United States v. Brown, 629 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam—categorical approach to prior convictions under ACCA)
United States v. Green, 480 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 2007) (pre-Green computer disclosure issues; default barcode/subsection concern)
United States v. Rosa, 507 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2007) (whether a conviction qualifies under 924(e)(2)(B)(i) based on violence)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause supports traffic stops for observed violations)
United States v. Scopo, 19 F.3d 777 (2d Cir. 1994) (New York stop/arrest standards under vehicle code)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (search incident to lawful arrest; body armor seizure admissible)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory searches of impounded vehicles admissible)
United States v. Mendez, 315 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2002) (inevitable discovery doctrine applicability post-inventory search)
United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) (high level of confidence warrant would have issued; inevitable discovery)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (prejudice concerns and stipulation to prior conviction)
Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1892) (enrolled-bill rule for challenged enactments)
United States v. Farmer, 583 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2009) (enrolled-bill rule applicable to Public Law 80-772)