United States v. Dwayne Robinson, Jr., 133 F.4th 712

Dwayne Robinson was convicted by a jury of unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon.
Police found two firearms in a car owned by Robinson’s cousin during his arrest; both Robinson and his cousin had prior felony convictions.
Robinson admitted knowing about and touching the guns but denied ownership, claiming a friend owned them.
The district court sentenced Robinson to a 15-year mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on three prior convictions (murder in 1991, drug offenses in 2013 and 2017).
Robinson raised four appellate claims: ex parte jury communication, admission of bad acts evidence, jury instruction error regarding gun ownership, and ACCA sentencing involving judge-found rather than jury-found facts.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed most claims for plain error due to lack of timely objection and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Robinson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Ex parte jury communication	Sixth Amendment violation when court responded to jury note without counsel input.	Counsel failed to object after the fact; only dealt with scheduling, not substantive matters.	No plain error; court's action was permissible scheduling info, not a critical stage.
Admission of "bad acts" evidence	Police testimony implied he committed other shootings; jury would be prejudiced.	Testimony about TITANS unit was general; detective’s response properly elicited by defense questioning.	No plain error; testimony either not about Robinson or properly responsive.
Jury instruction on gun ownership	Instruction misstated the law by making ownership wholly irrelevant to possession.	Instruction followed current precedent that ownership is not required for possession.	No plain error; law allows instruction, as possession doesn't require ownership.
Sentencing under ACCA without jury finding of separate "occasions"	Constitutionally required jury to determine whether prior convictions occurred on different occasions.	Error acknowledged per Supreme Court precedent, but harmless due to undisputed facts.	Error was harmless; record clearly showed distinct offenses years apart.

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless error may apply to omitted jury elements)
Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (harmless-error rule applies to sentencing enhancements)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (remedial severance in response to statutory constitutional defect)
United States v. Saikaly, 207 F.3d 363 (ownership is not a necessary element of possession under felon-in-possession statute)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (plain error standard for unobjected-to claims)
United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624 (Sixth Circuit: harmless error can apply to Erlinger violations in ACCA cases)