United States v. Wayne Graham
659 F. App'x 990
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Wayne Durham was convicted of (1) unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)) and (2) possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)); total sentence 288 months within the guidelines.
- Police executed a search warrant for a residence; in a safe officers found ammunition, 63 baggies of crack cocaine, and Durham’s wallet and identifying documents. Durham was present in the bedroom where the safe was located.
- Durham did not file a pretrial motion to suppress evidence and did not object at trial to the warrant-based seizure or evidence incident to arrest.
- On appeal Durham raised multiple claims: suppression error, prosecutorial misconduct ("Golden Rule"), insufficiency of the evidence, cumulative constitutional errors, substantive unreasonableness of sentence, ACCA enhancement viability post-Johnson, and dismissal of a post-judgment Speedy Trial Act motion.
- The panel affirmed: (1) suppression claim waived; (2) prosecutor’s remarks not improper or not prejudicial; (3) evidence sufficient to support both convictions; (4) sentence reasonable and ACCA enhancement not plainly erroneous; (5) Speedy Trial Act motion dismissal was proper because the district court lacked jurisdiction and Durham waived the right by not moving pretrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress evidence | Durham argued seizure and arrest evidence should have been suppressed because search/arrest were unlawful | Evidence was seized under a lawful warrant; Durham waived suppression by not filing pretrial motion or objecting at trial | Waived under Rule 12; even on the merits seizure and arrest were lawful, so no suppression error |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (Golden Rule) | Durham argued government invoked jurors’ sympathies/improperly inflamed jury in closing | Government said comments compared wallet handling to infer knowledge/possession, not asking jurors to imagine victim pain | Remarks not Golden Rule or inflammatory; any error harmless given strong evidence of guilt |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Durham contended evidence did not prove knowing possession of ammunition or drugs | Government relied on constructive possession: items found in safe with Durham’s wallet/docs, his presence in room, other corroborating evidence | Evidence adequate for constructive possession and intent to distribute; convictions affirmed |
| Sentencing/ACCA enhancement and Speedy Trial motion | Durham argued ACCA enhancement was plain error after Johnson and Speedy Trial dismissal was improper | Court noted two undisputed ACCA predicates and concluded not plain error; Speedy Trial motion filed after appeal divested district court of jurisdiction and was waived by not moving pretrial | ACCA enhancement not plain error here; sentence substantively reasonable; Speedy Trial Act relief waived and district court lacked jurisdiction to hear late motion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ford, 34 F.3d 992 (11th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Noriega, 117 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 1997) (review of prosecutorial misconduct mixed questions)
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011) (Florida robbery qualifies under ACCA elements clause)
- United States v. Welch, 683 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2012) (discussion of pre‑1999 Florida robbery elements)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (residual clause of ACCA held unconstitutional)
- United States v. Boffil-Rivera, 607 F.3d 736 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)