United States v. Luna
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16628
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Luna was charged with felon in possession of ammunition, assaulting a deputized Chelsea Task Force officer, and using a firearm during a crime of violence.
- Conley, a Chelsea police detective, was deputized to exercise the powers of enforcement personnel under 21 U.S.C. § 878 and served on the FBI North Shore Gang Task Force.
- Day of arrest: Conley pursued Luna at a rally; Luna fired at Conley and another officer; Luna was wrestled to the ground and taken into custody.
- Conley’s role involved both local police duties and Task Force duties; FBI and CPD coordinated; Conley did not file separate FBI overtime for that day.
- District court denied Luna’s motion to dismiss Count Two and later denied his Rule 29 motions; Luna was convicted on all counts.
- On appeal, Luna challenges the federal-officer status, the sufficiency of engagement in official duties, evidentiary rulings on ammunition, interstate-nexus expert testimony, and ACCA sentencing predicates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conley was a federal officer under §1114 §111 | Luna contends Conley was a local officer, not a federal officer. | Luna concedes deputization but argues scope of §111 protection is improper. | Conley qualifies as a federal officer under §111. |
| Whether Conley was engaged in official federal duties at the time of the assault | Luna argues dual role and local duties negate engagement in federal duties. | Conley’s dual Chelsea-Task Force role and FBI intelligence work show engagement in federal duties. | Evidence suffices for a reasonable jury to find engagement in federal duties. |
| Whether the ammunition and firearm were properly authenticated | Luna challenges authenticity/chain of custody of ammunition. | Initial admission was cured by later testimony and independent authentication. | Any error was harmless; evidence properly authenticated. |
| Whether the interstate-nexus expert testimony on ammunition violated evidentiary rules | Luna claims plain error in expert reliance on outside sources. | Expert testimony appropriately relied on multiple sources under Rule 703. | No plain error; testimony properly admitted. |
| Whether Luna’s ACCA predicate convictions establish a violent felony status | Luna challenges three non-drug predicates as ACCA predicates. | At least three predicates qualify under ACCA via force or residual clause or juvenile delinquency. | Luna has three ACCA predicates and the sentence is affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Torres, 862 F.2d 1025 (3d Cir.1988) (duet of local officer deputized on federal task force can be protected under §111)
- United States v. Roy, 408 F.3d 484 (8th Cir.2005) (threshold legal question whether victim is a federal officer for §1114 protection)
- United States v. Holloway, 630 F.3d 252 (1st Cir.2011) (framework for evaluating ACCA residual clause and violent-felony analysis)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 2008) (define 'like' in residual clause; typical of violent-conduct offenses)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (physical force defined as violent force for ACCA force clause)
- United States v. Dancy, 640 F.3d 455 (1st Cir.2011) (treats ABPO as ACCA predicate under residual clause post-Holloway)
- United States v. Cormier, 468 F.3d 63 (1st Cir.2006) (expert testimony may rely on technical sources for interstate-nexus determinations)
- United States v. Corey, 207 F.3d 84 (1st Cir.2000) (interstate-nexus element may be established by possession in a different state from manufacturing)
- United States v. Barrow, 448 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.2006) (authentication standard requires reasonable probability evidence is what it purports to be)