United States v. Joos, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9024

Joos, a felon, was charged with felon-in-possession of firearms and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and felon-in-possession of an explosive under § 842(i)(1).
ATF obtained information from a CI and conducted undercover investigations of Joos on his Sugar Creek, Missouri, property in 2009, including demonstrations of explosives knowledge.
Search warrant executed June 25, 2009; items seized included firearms, large ammunition quantities, black powder, cannon fuse, a bunkhouse with blasting caps, and a file with explosive recipes.
Trial occurred January 2010 after continuances; Joos requested new counsel and self-representation; the court denied further continuances and addressed defense concerns.
Joos was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 78 months on each count, to run concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release; on appeal he challenges multiple trial and constitutional issues.
The panel affirms the convictions and denial of relief on all asserted issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of §§ 922(g)(1) and 842(i)(1) on Second Amendment and Commerce Clause grounds	Joos argues statutes are unconstitutional facially and as applied	U.S. asserts statutes are constitutional under controlling precedent	Facial challenges rejected; as-applied challenges waived or fail; evidence showed interstate commerce connection.
Denial of pretrial continuance and removal of counsel	Joos contends denial deprived him of right to self-representation	Court acted within discretion; adequate time to prepare; no prejudice shown	No abuse of discretion; no reversible error given preparation and lack of prejudice.
Sua sponte Rule 404(b) limiting instruction	Absence of limiting instruction allowed character/acts to bias jury	No plain error; instruction not required sua sponte	No plain error; substantial evidence supports guilt.
Sufficiency of evidence to convict for explosive possession	Evidence insufficient to prove knowing possession	Evidence shows Joos had control or dominion; constructive possession shown	Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction.

United States v. Folen, 84 F.3d 1103 (8th Cir. 1996) (upholding § 842(i) against Commerce Clause challenge)
United States v. Waller, 218 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding § 842(i) under Second Amendment)
United States v. Hill, 386 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2004) (upholding § 922(g) against Commerce Clause)
United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010) (upholding § 922(g) under Second Amendment)
United States v. Morgan, 230 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (as-applied challenges nonjurisdictional; waiver notion)
United States v. Edelmann, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (self-representation standard; not a tactic to delay trial)
United States v. Bamberg, 478 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2007) (no plain error for lack of sua sponte 404(b) instruction)
United States v. Ladoucer, 573 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard for failure to give 404(b) instruction not met)
United States v. Maloney, 466 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 2006) (presence of innocent explanation does not negate guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
United States v. Cox, 627 F.3d 1083 (8th Cir. 2010) (defining knowing possession as actual or constructive)