United States v. Robert William Green
873 F.3d 846
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In April 2013 officers searching for Robert Green found him hiding shoeless in a closet of Jodi Simmons’s trailer; a loaded .22 handgun lay on a nightstand in the same bedroom, near men’s clothing, shoes, methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and bags of .22 ammunition.
- Green resisted arrest, later admitted to an ATF agent that he recently acquired the gun in a drugs-for-gun trade, and months later volunteered that the handgun was not his.
- Indictment charged Green with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); Green stipulated he was a convicted felon and objected to several pretrial rulings (indictment wording, admission of a 2006 Florida nolo contendere conviction under Rule 404(b)).
- The jury convicted Green; the PSR recommended—and the district court applied—an ACCA enhancement based on four prior Florida convictions, producing a 262-month sentence (bottom of Guideline range under ACCA).
- On appeal Green challenged: denial of judgment of acquittal (insufficiency of constructive possession), refusal to redact plural “crimes” in the indictment, admission of the 2006 nolo conviction as Rule 404(b) evidence, and the ACCA enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Green) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Motion for judgment of acquittal — sufficiency of possession evidence | Circumstantial evidence (location, clothing/shoes, nearby gun/ammo/drugs, GPS presence, Green’s admission) supports constructive possession | Admission uncorroborated; no actual possession; hiding in closet shows only presence, not control | Affirmed: evidence permitted reasonable inference of constructive possession; admission corroborated by extrinsic facts (Micieli discussed but distinguished) |
| 2. Indictment wording — plural “crimes” vs singular “crime” | Refusal to reword legitimate to avoid misleading jury about number of priors; jury already informed only of felon status | Plural suggests multiple prior convictions, unfairly prejudicial given stipulation to a single prior | District court should have redacted, but error was harmless given overwhelming circumstantial evidence; affirmed |
| 3. Admission of 2006 nolo-conviction under Rule 404(b) to prove prior act | Introduced certified judgment (redacted in part) to show prior ammunition-possession relevant to intent/knowledge | A nolo plea/conviction cannot be used to prove the underlying act under Rule 404(b); Rules 410 and 803(22) counsel exclusion | Court: nolo conviction generally cannot be used under Rule 803(22) to prove truth of prior act for 404(b); here admission was error but harmless because independent evidence supported guilt |
| 4. ACCA enhancement — whether Florida felony-battery convictions are violent felonies | At least three prior Florida convictions qualify (aggravated assault; resisting officer with violence; felony battery statutes) | Two battery convictions do not categorically qualify as ACCA violent felonies | Affirmed: Eleventh Circuit en banc precedent (Vail-Bailon) treats Fla. § 784.041 battery as a categorical violent felony; ACCA enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vail‑Bailon, 868 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (held Florida felony battery under § 784.041 qualifies as a categorical crime of violence under elements clause)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (a stipulation to prior conviction can render details of prior conviction inadmissible when they create unfair prejudice)
- United States v. Micieli, 594 F.2d 102 (5th Cir.) (1979) (confession generally must be corroborated; extrinsic corroboration can sustain conviction)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (standard for proving prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b) — jury could find prior act by preponderance)
- United States v. Frederickson, 601 F.2d 1358 (8th Cir. 1979) (concluded a judgment following nolo plea can be admissible under 404(b) to prove prior act)
- United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluded that admitting nolo-conviction judgments to prove substantive guilt may undermine Rule 410 and advised exclusion in some contexts)