United States v. Miles
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6637
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Miles was convicted in the SDNY after a bench trial on stipulated facts for felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Officers stopped Miles on a New York City subway car when he moved between end doors while the train was stationary; a loaded? unloaded revolver was found in his waistband during a frisk.
- Miles had a prior felony record; he claimed the gun was given by a friend for a guns-for-cash amnesty program.
- Miles sought pretrial relief including an innocent possession defense, entrapment by estoppel, and suppression of the gun; the district court denied these motions.
- Miles waived jury trial and, on stipulation, the court held a bench trial and found him guilty of § 922(g)(1).
- At sentencing, Miles challenged ACCA applicability based on a state robbery conviction sentenced under a non-standard scheme; the district court imposed the ACCA minimum (180 months).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment by estoppel availability | Miles relied on government cash-for-guns programs. | Federal officials’ assurances were needed to invoke the defense. | Entapment by estoppel defense not available; no affirmative federal assurance shown. |
| Innocent possession defense viability | Possession was innocent and solely for turning in the gun. | There is an innocent possession defense under § 922(g)(1). | Innocent possession defense not recognized on these facts. |
| Probable cause to arrest and frisk | Arrest based on subway-mandated end-door restriction provided probable cause. | Statutory interpretation undermines probable cause. | District court correctly held probable cause to arrest and frisk Miles. |
| ACCA sentencing based on state conviction | Robbery in the third degree sentenced under NY indeterminate scheme may not qualify as a violent felony under ACCA. | Conviction falls within ACCA's two elements regardless of sentence method. | Miles’s NY robbery conviction qualifies as a violent felony, supporting ACCA sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 389 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard for precluding defenses when evidence insufficient)
- United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) (clear-error review for entrapment-by-estoppel-related questions)
- United States v. Corso, 20 F.3d 521 (2d Cir. 1994) (standard of review for entrapment-by-estoppel issues)
- United States v. Gravel, 645 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2011) (statutory construction and de novo review in related contexts)
- United States v. Gil, 297 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2002) (entrapment-by-estoppel requires affirmative government assurance)
- United States v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006) (reliance on government advice for entrapment-by-estoppel)
- Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (1983) (interpretation of state-law sentences in ACCA context)
- United States v. Brown, 52 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 1995) (elements of a violent felony under ACCA; use of physical force)