United States v. James Franklin Broomfield, Jr., 591 F. App'x 847

Broomfield was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm with a predicate ACCA sentence based on three prior Florida drug offenses.
The government introduced a YouTube video of Broomfield discharging an AR-15 at Fowler Firearms as part of the proof.
The district court initially refused to admit the video, citing authentication concerns, and prevented witnesses from fully detailing its contents.
At trial, multiple witnesses testified to establish the video’s authenticity, location, date, and the firearm and ammunition depicted.
For sentencing, the PSI proposed ACCA-based enhancement; the government relied on charging documents to prove the three prior offenses occurred on separate occasions.
The district court sentenced Broomfield to the statutory minimum of 180 months and later the judgment contained a clerical date error (January 11, 2011 instead of January 21, 2011).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the video was properly authenticated	Broomfield contends authentication failed; the video should not be admitted.	Broomfield argues lack of sufficient authentication for YouTube video as depicting him with a firearm.	Video properly authenticated; district court did not abuse discretion.
Whether the ACCA prior offenses were proven to be on different occasions	Dates in charging documents must show separate occasions under Sneed/Weeks but some non-elemental dates may be used.	Dates in charging documents establish temporally distinct offenses; Descamps does not overrule this.	District court correctly relied on charging documents to find separate occasions; ACCA applies.
Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and use of prior convictions at sentencing	Challenge to § 922(g) constitutionality and use of non-jury-found priors to enhance sentence.	Precedent permits use of prior convictions for sentencing and § 922(g) is constitutional with minimal nexus to commerce.	Both challenges foreclosed by binding precedent; no reversible error.
Clerical errors in judgment and remand	Clerical error affects the offense date listed in the final judgment.	Correction would not prejudice Broomfield; remand appropriate for clerical correction only.	Remand for limited clerical correction of the date; otherwise affirm.

United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir. 2010) (authentication may be established by circumstantial evidence)
United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1501 (11th Cir. 1990) (circumstantial evidence can authenticate evidence)
United States v. Biggins, 551 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1977) (fact-specific factors for audio recordings; not controlling when video originates from third party)
Sneed v. United States, 600 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (prior offenses to be temporally distinct under ACCA via Shepard-approved documents)
Weeks v. United States, 711 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (reaffirmed Shepard-based approach to prior convictions for ACCA purposes)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (establishes use of Shepard-approved documents to determine prior convictions)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions may be used at sentencing)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (recognizes fact-finding beyond jury verdict for sentencing enhancements)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (confirming empirical limits on judicial fact-finding for enhancements (hybrid reference to Almendarez-Torres))
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits on modified categorical approach; separate-occasions analysis unaffected)
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (jurisdictional element to uphold commerce clause authority)
United States v. King, 751 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2014) (binding-precedent rule on when precedent may be overruled)