United States v. Reginald Wardell Howard, Jr., 666 F. App'x 791

Officers found Reginald Howard in a closed bathroom stall at a convenience store and recovered a loaded Glock 19 from his left rear pocket; Howard, a convicted felon, was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Howard asserted a justification (duress/necessity) defense at trial, arguing he picked up the gun to protect himself from an individual and family seeking retaliation.
Howard proposed a jury instruction placing the burden on the government to disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt; the district court instead required Howard to prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.
Howard asked the court to bifurcate the trial so a jury would first find guilt and then determine whether he had prior convictions for an ACCA enhancement; the court refused, and later found Howard had three qualifying prior drug convictions, triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum and a 210-month sentence.
Howard appealed, arguing (1) the jury instruction improperly shifted the burden for the justification defense to him, and (2) the court erred by not submitting the ACCA predicate-conviction question to the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Burden for justification defense under § 922(g)(1)	Howard: justification negates an element (malice) and thus gov't must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt	Gov't: § 922(g)(1) is satisfied by knowing possession; justification is an affirmative avoidance defense and burden may be on defendant	Court: Instruction placing burden on defendant to prove justification by preponderance was correct and foreclosed by Deleveaux and Dixon
Whether prior convictions must be submitted to a jury for ACCA enhancement	Howard: jury should determine predicate convictions (bifurcated trial) before ACCA sentence enhancement	Gov't: the fact of prior convictions need not be tried to a jury under Almendarez-Torres; only new sentence-increasing facts must be	Court: No error—prior-conviction fact need not be submitted to jury; refusal to bifurcate proper

United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000) (§ 922(g)(1) requires only knowing possession and justification is an affirmative avoidance defense)
Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006) (duress/necessity defenses do not negate mens rea and need not be disproved by government beyond a reasonable doubt)
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (where statute silent on mens rea, Court may read in a mens rea requirement tied to the lawfulness-defining features of the conduct)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (fact of prior conviction is an exception and need not be proved to a jury)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, except the fact of a prior conviction)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (reaffirmed that facts increasing mandatory minimums must be found by a jury, but noted Almendarez-Torres remains an exception)
Cargill v. Turpin, 120 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 1997) (panel precedent is binding unless overruled en banc or by Supreme Court)