United States v. Lara ( 2020 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 17-1957
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
VICTOR LARA, JR.,
Defendant, Appellant.
No. 17-1964
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
KOURTNEY WILLIAMS,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Jon D. Levy, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Thompson, Stahl, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Luke S. Rioux for Victor Lara, Jr.
Jessica LaClair for Kourtney Williams.
Benjamin M. Block, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Halsey B. Frank, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellee.
August 12, 2020
BARRON, Circuit Judge. In these consolidated appeals,
Victor Lara and Kourtney Williams challenge various federal
convictions -- and the resulting sentence -- that each received in
connection with a 2014 robbery in Maine. We affirm their
convictions, except for the one that each received for violating
18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which makes it a crime to use a firearm "during
and in relation to" a "crime of violence," id. § 924(c)(1)(A).
The reversal of those convictions requires that we also vacate
Lara's and Williams's sentences.
I.
Lara was arrested and detained on state charges by local
law enforcement authorities in Maine on August 6, 2014, and so,
too, was Williams days later on August 9. The arrests were made
in connection with the robbery that year in Minot, Maine, of the
residence of Ross Tardif, an alleged dealer of oxycodone and other
controlled substances.
A federal complaint in connection with the robbery of
Tardif's residence was filed in the District of Maine against Lara
on March 18, 2015, at which point the state charges against him in
connection with the robbery were dismissed and he was taken into
federal custody. Then, on April 7, 2015, a federal grand jury in
the District of Maine indicted both him and Williams, as well as
a third person, Ishmael Douglas, on federal criminal charges
arising out the robbery.
- 3 -
The federal indictment charged Douglas, Lara, and
Williams each with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute controlled substances -- specifically,
oxycodone -- under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C);
one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a); and one count of use of a firearm during and in relation
to a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The
federal indictment also charged Williams and Douglas each with one
count of possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e).
Over the course of the next roughly eighteen months,
Lara, Williams, and Douglas filed various pre-trial motions in the
District Court. Then, in August of 2016, Douglas entered a
conditional guilty plea to the counts for conspiracy to commit
Hobbs Act robbery and for violating § 924(c), and the remaining
charges against him were dismissed. Lara and Williams, however,
proceeded to trial, and the jury in their case returned its verdict
in September of 2016. The jury found them not guilty of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C), but
guilty on the other counts. The District Court entered judgments
of convictions against both Lara and Williams and proceeded to
sentencing.
- 4 -
The District Court sentenced Lara to 100 months of
imprisonment for his conviction for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act
robbery and eighty-four months of imprisonment for his conviction
for violating § 924(c), with each of these sentences to run
consecutively. Lara thus received a total prison sentence of 184
months. The District Court sentenced Williams to a 100-month
prison sentence for his conviction for conspiracy to commit Hobbs
Act robbery, which was to run concurrently with his fifty-month
prison sentence for his conviction for being a felon in possession
of a firearm and consecutively to his eighty-four-month prison
sentence for his conviction for violating § 924(c). Thus, like
Lara, Williams also received a 184-month prison sentence.
Both defendants filed timely appeals, which were
consolidated for our review.
II.
We start with the challenges that Lara and Williams each
bring to their convictions for use of a firearm "during and in
relation" to a "crime of violence." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
The alleged "crime of violence" was conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act
robbery. At the time that Lara and Williams were each convicted
of this offense, the applicable definition of a "crime of violence"
contained both a "force clause" and a "residual clause." See id.§ 924(c)(3); see also United States v. Cruz-Rivera, 904 F.3d 63,
65 (1st Cir. 2018). The latter clause denominated as a "crime of
- 5 -
violence" a felony "that by its nature, involves a substantial
risk that physical force against the person or property of another
may be used in the course of committing the offense." 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(3)(B).1
After the parties filed their initial briefs to us in
these then-pending consolidated appeals, however, the United
States Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct.
2319 (2019). In that case, the Court struck down the "residual
clause" as unconstitutionally vague. See id. at 2336. We
requested supplemental briefing to address Davis's impact, if any,
on Williams's and Lara's § 924(c) convictions. In their
supplemental briefs, Lara and Williams argue that in consequence
of Davis, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify
as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c), because what remains of
the "crime of violence" definition does not encompass that offense.
The government agrees. We thus reverse the conviction pursuant to
§ 924(c) that Lara and Williams each received.
III.
We next consider a set of challenges based on various
instructional errors that Williams brings to his stand-alone
conviction for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. Lara did
1
The "force clause" defines a "crime of violence" as a felony
that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use
of physical force against the person or property of another." 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).
- 6 -
not make these challenges in his opening brief to us, but he
purports to join in them through his reply brief.
We assume Lara has not waived these challenges by raising
them only in his reply brief. See United States v. Mkhsian, 5
F.3d 1306, 1310 n.2 (9th Cir. 1993). But see United States v.
Leoner-Aguirre, 939 F.3d 310, 319 n.11 (1st Cir. 2019) (finding
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief waived). For
ease of exposition, though, we describe these challenges as if
they are Williams's alone. We do so in part because Lara purported
to join in them merely in one sentence in his reply brief. He
thus gives no reason as to why his challenges do not rise and fall
with Williams's arguments, even if some of them were waived below
by representations that Williams's counsel made to the District
Court while representing his client alone.
A.
We start with the contention that the District Court
incorrectly instructed the jury that it only needed to find that
Williams intended to obtain "drugs or drug trafficking proceeds"
to find him guilty of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery.
Williams points out that the indictment charged him with having
"knowingly and intentionally conspired . . . to obstruct, delay
and affect commerce and the movement of articles in commerce,
namely illegal drugs and drug trafficking proceeds, by robbery"
but then added that, "[s]pecifically, the defendants agreed
- 7 -
together and with others to steal Percocet (oxycodone) pills and
any proceeds from the trafficking of such illegal drugs." Williams
contends that the instruction constructively amended the
indictment by describing the object of the charged conspiracy too
generally. See United States v. Pierre, 484 F.3d 75, 81-82 (1st
Cir. 2007) (discussing constructive amendments).
The problem for Williams is that, in a colloquy that
preceded this instruction, the government proposed that the
District Court use the word "property" to describe the conspiracy's
object, and Williams's counsel proposed instead that the District
Court use the phrase "drugs or drug proceeds." Thus, Williams
targets language in the instruction that is not materially
different from the language that his counsel requested.
Accordingly, the challenge has been waived. See United States v.
Acevedo, 882 F.3d 251, 264 (1st Cir. 2018).
B.
Williams next challenges the response that the District
Court gave to a question that the jury asked during deliberations
about this same count. The jury's question related to a theory
that Williams had put forward at trial concerning a mismatch
between what the evidence at trial had showed to be the object of
the conspiracy and the object of the conspiracy charged in the
indictment. Specifically, Williams had argued at trial that the
evidence showed that the object of the conspiracy was inheritance
- 8 -
money belonging to Tardif, while the indictment described its
object as "Percocet (oxycodone) pills and any proceeds from the
trafficking of such illegal drugs."
The jury's question was: "[C]an we convict on just
conspiracy, without convicting specifically under [H]obbs [A]ct
[r]obbery for oxycodone pills and proceeds (question of
inheritance as motive)?" The District Court responded: "[Y]ou
cannot convict either defendant under [this count] unless you find
that the defendant was part of [a] conspiracy that intended to
obtain drugs or drug trafficking proceeds . . . by robbery."
Williams does not dispute that the District Court's
response correctly instructed the jury that it could not find him
guilty on this count if the object of the conspiracy did not
concern "drugs" at all. But, he contends, the instruction still
wrongly instructed the jury, because it instructed the jury that
it could find him guilty of this count without finding that the
conspiracy's object concerned "Percocet (oxycodone)" specifically.
By describing the conspiracy's object as generally as the answer
to the jury's question did, Williams argues, the District Court
constructively amended the indictment. See Pierre, 484 F.3d at
81-82.
We agree with the government that here, too, waiver
stands in the way of Williams's challenge. See Acevedo, 882 F.3d
at 264. The record shows that the District Court discussed how to
- 9 -
respond to the jury's question with counsel for both parties before
answering it and that Williams's counsel stated during that
colloquy that he "[a]greed" with the response that the District
Court gave.2
Williams separately challenges the District Court's
response to this question on the ground that it wrongly suggested
that the jury needed to find only that the conspiracy, rather than
Williams, intended to obtain drugs or drug trafficking proceeds.
See United States v. Gonzalez, 570 F.3d 16, 24 (1st Cir. 2009)
("Under our law, 'the requisite intent' needed for a conspiracy
conviction is that 'the defendant intended to join in the
conspiracy and intended the substantive offense to be committed.'"
(quoting United States v. Henderson, 320 F.3d 92, 110 (1st Cir.
2003))). But, because Williams's counsel agreed to the District
Court's response, this challenge, too, is waived. See Acevedo,
882 F.3d at 264.
Moreover, if this challenge is not waived, it is at least
forfeited. Thus, our review is at most only for plain error. See
United States v. Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d 292, 311 (1st Cir. 2000).
2 Williams contends that, after his counsel agreed to this
instruction, the attorney later told the District Court "I sort of
withdraw what I said previously." Based on this statement,
Williams argues that his challenge to the District Court's response
to the jury's question was not waived. But, the transcript reveals
that the attorney expressed this hesitance when discussing a
separate question that the jury had asked during its deliberations.
- 10 -
To show an error of that kind, Williams must show, among other
things, that it was "clear or obvious." Gonzalez, 570 F.3d at 21.
But, prior to answering the jury's question, the District Court
instructed the jury that it needed to find that "the defendant
knowingly and willfully conspired to obtain drugs or drug
trafficking proceeds" in order to find Williams guilty of this
conspiracy offense. Thus, it is not "clear or obvious" that "[t]he
charge [to the jury], taken as a whole" failed adequately to
"convey[] the idea that [Williams] must have personally and
intentionally joined the agreement." Id. at 24.
C.
Williams's final challenge in this set of claimed
instructional errors rests on the contention that the District
Court engaged in impermissible factfinding in responding to a
separate question that the jury asked during its deliberations.
The question concerned the testimony of a key witness for the
government, Heidi Hutchinson, who both participated in the initial
conversations about the robbery of Tardif's residence and served
as the driver in carrying it out.
The jury asked the following question about the
testimony: "Does Heidi [Hutchinson] mention or imply in her
transcript that [Tardif] had Perc 30's [oxycodone]?" The District
Court replied: "Yes."
- 11 -
Williams points out that Hutchinson did not testify that
she had personal knowledge that Tardif had oxycodone. Instead,
she testified that a person named Myles Hartford, who had
participated in the initial conversations about robbing Tardif's
residence but who did not testify at trial, had said in her
presence that Tardif had oxycodone. Williams contends that the
District Court usurped the role of the jury by stating that
Hutchinson herself had "mention[ed]" or "impl[ied]" that Tardif
had oxycodone, when, in fact, the record shows that she testified
only that Hartford had made a representation in her presence that
Tardif had that drug.
Williams further contends that the District Court's
answer was highly prejudicial. He points out that Hutchinson had
participated in the robbery but that Hartford had backed out of
doing so. He contends that testimony from someone who participated
in the robbery that Tardif had oxycodone provided more support for
the jury finding that the object of the conspiracy concerned that
drug than did that same testimony from someone who ultimately
backed out of the robbery.
The parties dispute whether this challenge, too, was
waived below. But, it was at least forfeited, as Williams concedes
he failed to object below, and so our review is at most for plain
error. See Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d at 311. Williams has failed to
- 12 -
show, however, that the District Court's answer to the jury
constituted an error of that kind.
The District Court could have provided the jury with a
more precise description of Hutchinson's testimony. But,
Hutchinson did testify that Hartford said that Tardif had
oxycodone. We thus cannot say that the District Court's pithy
answer so mischaracterized Hutchinson's testimony that it
constituted, as the plain error standard requires in the absence
of contemporaneous objection, a "clear or obvious" error. See
United States v. Sabetta, 373 F.3d 75, 80-81 (1st Cir. 2004)
(finding no clear or obvious error on plain error review even
though the district court's response to a jury's question about
testimony was not "ideal").
IV.
We now turn to a challenge that Williams brings to an
evidentiary ruling that the District Court made at trial that he
contends requires that we vacate his conviction for conspiracy to
commit Hobbs Act robbery. Here, too, Lara did not bring this
challenge in his opening brief to us. He purports to join in it
solely through his reply brief. We once again assume that Lara
has not waived this challenge on appeal, though, again, we describe
- 13 -
it -- for ease of exposition -- as if it has been brought by
Williams alone.3
In the evidentiary ruling at issue, the District Court
permitted the introduction at trial of Hutchinson's testimony
about statements that Hartford -- the person who Hutchinson had
said told her that Tardif had oxycodone -- made during the planning
phase of the conspiracy to commit the robbery. Williams argues
that it was wrong for the District Court to have done so, because
that testimony from Hutchinson was hearsay. We do not agree.
The District Court provisionally admitted Hutchinson's
testimony, in accordance with United States v. Petrozziello, 548
F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1977), under the co-conspirator hearsay
exception that Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) sets forth.
That exception to the hearsay bar "provides that a statement made
by a defendant's coconspirator 'during the course of and in
furtherance of the conspiracy' may be introduced as the nonhearsay
admission of a party opponent." United States v. Ciresi, 697 F.3d
19, 25 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)). The
District Court then later ruled -- after the close of
evidence -- that Hutchinson's testimony about what Hartford had
said in her presence was admissible under that same exception.
3 While Lara does develop this challenge to an extent on his
own in his reply brief, his arguments overlap with those raised by
Williams. Thus, here as well we describe the arguments as if they
are the contentions of Williams alone.
- 14 -
We review preserved challenges to the admission of
statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) for either clear error or abuse
of discretion. United States v. Merritt, 945 F.3d 578, 586 (1st
Cir. 2019). We need not decide which standard applies in this
case, as Williams's challenge fails under either standard. See
id.The District Court summarized Hutchinson's testimony as
relating to statements that Hartford made "on or around July 26th
of 2014, both in-person at Hutchins[on's] apartment and then
subsequently over the phone." The District Court further explained
that:
The substance of the hearsay included the idea
that Ross Tardif's house would be a good
target for a robbery because Hartford knew
Tardif to be a drug dealer who had money and
drug proceeds in his house, and also that
Hartford described the layout of the inside of
Tardif's house, which is information which
would be important to planning a robbery.
Hutchinson testified, for instance, that Hartford "came
up with the idea that he knows somebody [named Ross Tardif] that
he used to get drugs off of that has money and drug proceeds in
his house," and that Hartford proposed robbing Tardif's house.
Hutchinson also testified that Lara, Williams, and Hartford agreed
that they "were gonna go into Ross's house and rob him," although
there is no dispute that the record shows that Hartford ultimately
backed out and did not participate in the robbery.
- 15 -
Williams does not make clear which precise portions of
Hutchinson's testimony he is contending were inadmissible as
hearsay. But, the testimony described above potentially
undermined Williams's defense at trial that the government had
failed to show that -- as the indictment alleged -- the conspiracy
to rob Tardif's residence had as its object obtaining Percocet
(oxycodone) pills and drug trafficking proceeds rather than money
that Tardif had inherited.
In challenging the admission of the testimony, Williams
rightly contends that, to admit out-of-court statements made by a
defendant's co-conspirator that otherwise would be barred as
hearsay, a district court "must determine by a preponderance of
the evidence that the declarant and the defendant were members of
the same conspiracy and that the statement was made in furtherance
of the conspiracy." Merritt, 945 F.3d at 586 (quoting United
States v. Paz-Alvarez, 799 F.3d 12, 29 (1st Cir. 2015)). He also
rightly contends that the government could not rely solely on
Hutchinson's testimony about Hartford's statements to determine
that Hartford was a member of the same conspiracy as Williams,
such that Hartford's statements could be admitted pursuant to the
co-conspirator exception to the hearsay bar. See United States v.
Piper, 298 F.3d 47, 52 (1st Cir. 2002) (explaining that
"coconspirator statements are not deemed self-elucidating").
Williams then winds up this challenge by arguing that the District
- 16 -
Court erred because there was insufficient corroborating evidence
that Hartford was a member of the same conspiracy as the one in
which Williams was alleged to have been a participant.
To support this contention, Williams first asserts that
the evidence shows that Hartford was not involved in the robbery
conspiracy at all -- whatever its object -- because he did not
participate in the robbery itself. But, that contention is without
merit, as a conspirator's "culpability may be constant though
responsibilities are divided" and thus "the government does not
need to show . . . that a given defendant took part in all aspects
of the conspiracy." United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161,
1173 (1st Cir. 1993).
Williams also suggests that even if Hartford initially
participated in the conspiracy, he then withdrew from it well
before the robbery occurred by ignoring the defendants' phone calls
and not otherwise manifesting any involvement in it thereafter.
But, that contention is also mistaken. Williams does not argue
that Hartford ever "act[ed] affirmatively either to defeat or
disavow the purposes of the conspiracy," Leoner-Aguirre, 939 F.3d
at 318 (quoting Ciresi, 697 F.3d at 27); see also Piper, 298 F.3d
at 53 (explaining that withdrawal typically "requires 'either
. . . a full confession to authorities or a communication by the
accused to his co-conspirators that he has abandoned the enterprise
and its goals'" (alteration in original) (quoting United States v.
- 17 -
Juodakis, 834 F.2d 1099, 1102 (1st Cir. 1987))), and Hartford's
"[m]ere cessation of activity in furtherance of the conspiracy
does not constitute withdrawal," Leoner-Aguirre, 939 F.3d at 319
(alteration in original) (quoting Ciresi, 697 F.3d at 27).
That leaves only Williams's contention that, even if
Hartford participated along with him in the conspiracy to rob
Tardif's residence, the evidence did not show by a preponderance
that they both conspired to commit that robbery to obtain Percocet
(oxycodone) and drug trafficking proceeds, because of the evidence
that indicated that at least one of them conspired at most to rob
the residence to obtain Tardif's inheritance money.4 Thus,
Williams contends the record does not show by a preponderance that
he and Hartford belonged to the same conspiracy.
To support this contention, Williams highlights the fact
that Hutchinson testified that she herself had no
knowledge -- apart from what she testified Hartford said in her
presence -- that Tardif sold oxycodone. Williams also points out
that Douglas, his co-defendant who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
4
"[T]he rigors of Rule 801(d)(2)(E) may be satisfied by
showing that both the declarant and the defendant belonged to some
conspiracy other than the substantive conspiracy charged in the
indictment." Piper, 298 F.3d at 54-55 (citing United States v.
Lara, 181 F.3d 183, 196 (1st Cir. 1999)). But, here, the
government did not argue that Hartford's statements were
admissible based on the broader conspiracy to rob Tardif's house.
So we assume, as Williams argues, that the government had to show
that he and Hartford shared the goal to rob oxycodone and drug
proceeds, specifically.
- 18 -
commit Hobbs Act robbery in connection with the robbery of Tardif's
residence, testified that Williams's goal was to steal inheritance
money. Finally, Williams notes that the record shows that no
Percocet (oxycodone) pills were taken from Tardif's residence
during the robbery.
But, under the deferential standard of review that we
must apply -- whether abuse of discretion or clear error -- the
record suffices to support the District Court's finding that the
preponderance of the evidence shows that the object of the
conspiracy of which Williams was a part concerned Percocet
(oxycodone) and drug trafficking proceeds. Hutchinson testified,
in statements that are not challenged on appeal, that during
meetings to plan the robbery, Lara and Williams discussed that
they intended to get "Perc 30s" -- oxycodone -- from Tardif's house
and "to sell them to get money." Additionally, the government
points out that a victim of the robbery testified that the robbers
entered the home yelling "DEA, DEA" and asked repeatedly "where's
the shit?"
Moreover, whether our review is for abuse of discretion
or clear error, the evidence also sufficed to support the District
Court's finding that a preponderance of the evidence showed that
Hartford was a member of that same conspiracy. Tardif testified
that he was a known Percocet (oxycodone) dealer, that he had been
selling drugs for years prior to the robbery, and, critically,
- 19 -
that Hartford had previously tried to buy drugs from him. That
testimony in turn corroborated Hartford's statement to Williams
and Lara, just before they agreed to rob Tardif, that he knew that
Tardif sold drugs and that he had drug money in his house.
Moreover, Hutchinson testified, based on her own recollection,
that Hartford "masterminded" the robbery and that he was one of
the people who was in the room during the planning meetings. Thus,
considering the evidence as a whole, a reasonable factfinder
supportably could determine that it was more likely than not that
all the participants in the conspiracy were after Tardif's Percocet
(oxycodone) rather than his inheritance money.
Accordingly, to the extent that the challenged testimony
is hearsay, we find that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion or clearly err in admitting Hutchinson's testimony
about Hartford's statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). We thus
reject this ground for challenging Williams's conviction for
conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery.
V.
Lara alone brings the next challenge that we address,
which takes aim at all his convictions. He contends that his right
- 20 -
under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to a
speedy trial on his federal charges was violated.5
The Sixth Amendment guarantees that all criminal
defendants "shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."
U.S. Const. amend. VI. "If the government violates this . . .
right, [then] the criminal charges must be dismissed." United
States v. Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50, 60 (1st Cir. 2010).
To assess whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right
has been violated, we consider four factors: (1) "the length of
delay"; (2) "the reason assigned by the government for the delay";
(3) "the defendant's responsibility to assert his right"; and
(4) "prejudice to the defendant, particularly 'to limit the
possibility that the defense will be impaired.'" United States v.
Handa, 892 F.3d 95, 101 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Barker v. Wingo,
407 U.S. 514, 532 (1972)).
Lara does not dispute that our precedent requires that
we apply the abuse of discretion standard to review this claim.
See id. (noting that the abuse of discretion standard is "in
tension with the rules of other circuits, as well as this circuit's
5 Lara also alleges a violation of his right to due process
under the Fifth Amendment to the United State Constitution on the
same basis, but, because he offers no distinct arguments to support
his Fifth Amendment claim, we analyze both of his claims in
parallel under the Sixth Amendment framework. We note as well
that Lara does not allege a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, see
18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174, to this Court, and that the District Court
found that he had waived any claim under that statute.
- 21 -
standard of review when considering other similar issues" (quoting
United States v. Irizarry-Colón, 848 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2017))).
We thus conduct our review under that relatively deferential
standard.
A.
The inquiry into the first factor -- delay -- entails
what amounts to a "double enquiry," as delay is "both . . . a
'triggering mechanism for the rest of the [speedy trial] analysis,
and a factor in that analysis.'" Id. (second alteration in
original) (first quoting Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647,
651 (1992), and then quoting United States v. Carpenter, 781 F.3d
599, 609 (1st Cir. 2015)). We thus first ask in assessing the
delay factor whether "the time between accusation . . . and trial
'has crossed the threshold dividing ordinary from presumptively
prejudicial delay.'" Id. (quoting Irizarry-Colón, 848 F.3d at
68). If the delay does, then we must further ask how long it
lasted. See id.
Delays of around a year or longer are presumptively
prejudicial. Id. In the event of such a delay, we balance all
four of the factors to determine whether there has been a
violation, as none carries "any talismanic power." Dowdell, 595
F.3d at 60.
The parties agree that the delay before Lara's trial on
the federal charges was itself at least one year and thus
- 22 -
presumptively prejudicial. See Handa, 892 F.3d at 101. But, Lara
contends the delay should be measured from the time of arrest on
the state charges in August of 2014, because he contends that
"federal investigators were involved," even at that early point.
Thus, he contends that he experienced a delay of about twenty-five
months before the commencement of his trial in September of 2016,
and that the District Court, which measured the period of pre-
trial delay from the time of his federal arrest in March of 2015,
erred in finding that the delay was only seventeen months and
twenty days.
In Dowdell, however, we held that "[t]he speed of a
federal trial is measured from the federal accusation on which it
is based." 595 F.3d at 62. Moreover, Dowdell explained that this
general rule applies even when a "federal indictment was
essentially a continuation of . . . state proceedings." Id.
Lara counters that Dowdell was based on dual sovereignty
concerns rooted in the Double Jeopardy Clause and that we have
subsequently cast "skepticism" on an attempt to "import Double
Jeopardy principles into our Sixth Amendment speedy trial
jurisprudence." Handa, 892 F.3d at 105. But, while Dowdell
recognized that the dual sovereignty principles it was applying
were "perhaps most recognizable from the double jeopardy context,"
it expressly held that the same principles "animate our
- 23 -
constitutional speedy trial jurisprudence, as well." 595 F.3d at
61.
Nor is our subsequent decision in Handa to the contrary.
To the extent that we expressed "skepticism" about importing Double
Jeopardy principles into the speedy trial analysis in that case,
we did so only in rejecting the government's contention that a
federal charge added in a superseding federal indictment "reset[]
the speedy trial clock as to that charge so long as, under Double
Jeopardy principles, the additional charge is not for the 'same
offense' as one of the original charges." 892 F.3d at 105
(footnote omitted); see also id. at 100-01. Thus, Handa accords
with Dowdell.
Lara also argues that Dowdell does not control the way
that we must measure the delay in this case because it was based
on a misreading of United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1 (1982),
which he contends "stands for the proposition that the right [to
a speedy trial] attaches at the time of accusation -- not
necessarily [the] federal accusation." He thus appears to argue
that, under a proper reading of MacDonald, his speedy trial right
attached at the time of the state accusation, because he was in
continuous custody from the time at which the state charges were
filed in August of 2014 until his trial in September of 2016. Not
so. We are bound by Dowdell under the law-of-the-circuit doctrine,
see United States v. Barbosa, 896 F.3d 60, 74 (1st Cir. 2018),
- 24 -
and, in any event, Dowdell itself recognized that MacDonald
expressly noted that "an arrest or indictment by one sovereign
would not cause the speedy trial guarantees to become engaged as
to possible subsequent indictments by another sovereign," 595 F.3d
at 61 (quoting MacDonald, 456 U.S. at 10 n.11).6
Lara's last argument for concluding that the delay was
much greater than roughly eighteen months rests on cases that have
concluded that a superseding federal indictment does not reset the
speedy trial clock. See, e.g., Handa, 892 F.3d at 102-04. But,
these cases are entirely consistent with the conclusion, based on
Dowdell, that his state charges are irrelevant to when the speedy
clock starts here.
Thus, we agree with the District Court that Lara
experienced a delay of about eighteen months. We have
characterized such a delay as "not at the extreme end of the
spectrum" but one that might nevertheless weigh somewhat in the
defendant's favor in the overall calculus. United States v. Souza,
749 F.3d 74, 82 (1st Cir. 2014). The government does not disagree.
6
We have noted that a limited exception to this rule may
exist where a "state prosecution is 'merely a tool of the federal
authorities'" and thus "one sovereign was a pawn of the other."
Dowdell, 595 F.3d at 63 (first quoting Bartkus v. Illinois, 359
U.S. 121, 123-24 (1959), then quoting United States v. Guzman, 85
F.3d 823, 827 (1st Cir. 1996)). But, Lara does not argue that
this exception applies in his case.
- 25 -
We proceed on that understanding in moving on to the next factor
under the speedy trial test.
B.
This second factor concerns the explanation for the
delay, and it is the "focal inquiry." Id. (quoting United States
v. Munoz-Franco, 487 F.3d 25, 60 (1st Cir. 2007)). The District
Court found that the primary causes of the delay were the pre-
trial motions filed by Lara's co-defendants and Lara's
unsuccessful motion to sever.7 Lara does not identify any evidence
that the delay was a product of bad faith or inefficiency on the
government's part. Thus, because the delay is "largely due to the
needs of codefendants, rather than any slothfulness on the
government's part," this second factor points against finding a
speedy trial violation. United States v. Vega Molina, 407 F.3d
511, 533 (1st Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Casas, 425
F.3d 23, 34 (1st Cir. 2005) ("[T]he joint prosecution of defendants
involved in the same drug trafficking conspiracy is justified as
a means of serving the efficient administration of justice.
Accordingly, we find that the reasons for the delay are sound and
weigh against a finding of Sixth Amendment violation.").
7
As the District Court found, Lara's two co-defendants filed
numerous motions to extend the time for filing pre-trial motions,
a motion to reopen a detention hearing, a motion to suppress,
motions to sever, a partial motion to dismiss, motions in limine,
a motion to continue the trial date, and a change in plea.
- 26 -
C.
The third factor concerns whether the defendant asserted
the speedy trial right. The government concedes that Lara
repeatedly did so in the District Court. Thus, this factor points
in Lara's favor.
D.
The fourth and final factor concerns prejudice. The
Court has recognized three types of prejudice: "'oppressive
pretrial incarceration,' 'anxiety and concern of the accused,' and
'the possibility that the [accused's] defense will be impaired' by
dimming memories and loss of exculpatory evidence." Doggett, 505
U.S. at 654 (alteration in original) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at
532). Lara asserts that his case was affected by all three, but
he focuses his arguments to us on the third type, which concerns
the extent to which the delay impaired his defense.
Lara first notes that Hartford, who Hutchinson testified
had participated in the planning stages of the robbery before
backing out, died before trial. But, Hartford died in December
2014, prior to Lara's federal indictment in 2015. Thus, the delay
itself could not have prejudiced Lara in that regard.
Lara also argues that the government's case was
unusually dependent on witness testimony. But, his contention
that the delay impacted witness's memories is almost entirely
speculative, and "[t]he passage of time alone . . . is not
- 27 -
conclusive evidence of prejudice." United States v. Colombo, 852
F.2d 19, 26 (1st Cir. 1988). To the extent that he makes any
concrete argument on this front, he contends that the witness
testimony was inconsistent. These assertions are not backed up,
however, with any specific instances of inconsistencies.
Lara does argue that one important government
witness -- Douglas, the co-defendant who pleaded guilty before
trial -- agreed to testify only on the eve of trial. But, the
fact that a witness did testify as a result of the delay is not,
at least on its own, the sort of prejudice that the speedy trial
right is designed to protect against. See United States v.
Trueber, 238 F.3d 79, 91 (1st Cir. 2001) ("[The defendant] does
not point to a single authority to support the novel proposition
that the potential strength the government's case may acquire over
time amounts to prejudice against the defendant."); United States
v. Abad, 514 F.3d 271, 275 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that the
procurement of cooperating witnesses during a delay "does not, on
its own, amount to prejudice" in the speedy trial analysis).
Finally, Lara argues that he faced prejudice of the first
two types -- "oppressive pretrial incarceration" and "anxiety and
concern of the accused." Doggett, 505 U.S. at 654. But, he points
to no case where we have found that a defendant was prejudiced
when there was a delay of this duration, no evidence of bad faith
by the government, and no evidence that the defense was impaired.
- 28 -
Thus, this factor points against finding a speedy trial right
violation.
E.
Putting the full speedy trial analysis together, this
case is not unlike those in which we have found no speedy trial
right violation. See Vega Molina, 407 F.3d at 533 (no violation
where an eighteen-month delay was caused by co-defendants and did
not cause prejudice). We thus reject this challenge.
VI.
The final challenge to a conviction that we must address
concerns Williams's under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon
in possession of a firearm. Section 924(a)(2) provides that
"[w]hoever knowingly violates" certain subsections of § 922,
including the subsection at issue in this
case -- § 922(g) -- "shall be fined . . . , imprisoned not more
than 10 years, or both." Id. § 924(a)(2) (emphasis added). In
turn, § 922(g) provides that it is "unlawful for any person . . .
who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . to . . . possess
. . . any firearm." Id. § 922(g)(1).
Following Williams's conviction for this offense and the
parties' filing of their initial briefs, the United States Supreme
Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).
There, the Court held that the word "knowingly" in § 924(a)(2),
- 29 -
when applied to the elements of the crime listed in § 922(g)(1),
required the government to show not only "that the defendant knew
he possessed a firearm" but "also that he knew he had the relevant
status when he possessed it." 139 S. Ct. at 2194, 2196. We asked
Williams and the government to address the impact of Rehaif on
Williams's felon-in-possession conviction in their supplemental
briefs.
Based on Rehaif, Williams contends, on a number of
distinct grounds, that his felon-in-possession conviction cannot
stand. First, he contends that insufficient evidence supported
the conviction, because there was insufficient evidence to satisfy
the knowledge-of-status element. Second, he argues that the
indictment was deficient because it neither referenced § 924(a)(2)
nor otherwise indicated that the government needed to show
Williams's knowledge of his status as a felon at the time of his
firearms possession. Finally, he contends that the jury
instructions did not mention the knowledge-of-status element of
the offense.
Courts throughout the country have been grappling with
similar challenges in the wake of Rehaif, as their precedent, like
ours, did not require proof of knowledge of status prior to Rehaif.
See, e.g., United States v. Maez, 960 F.3d 949, 953 (7th Cir.
2020). These challenges raise a number of questions about, in
particular, the application of the plain error standard of review,
- 30 -
which provides that a clear or obvious error should be corrected
if it "seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings." Rosales-Mireles v. United
States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1905 (2018) (quoting Molina-Martinez v.
United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016)); see, e.g., United
States v. Johnson, 963 F.3d 847, 851-54 (9th Cir. 2020)
(considering what evidence an appellate court should review when
addressing a Rehaif-based challenge on plain error review); Maez,
960 F.3d at 959-66 (collecting cases and holding that, when
reviewing Rehaif-based challenges to indictments and jury
instructions under prong four of plain error review, an appellate
court may consider evidence that was not before, respectively, the
grand jury and jury). We consider each of the three Rehaif-based
challenges that Williams brings in turn, though we find that none
supplies a basis for overturning the conviction.
A.
Williams first argues that there was insufficient
evidence to convict him of violating § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2)
because, based on the evidence introduced at trial, no rational
juror could have found the knowledge-of-status element of the
offense that Rehaif now makes clear a jury must find. When
considering sufficiency challenges that are properly preserved, we
examine the record evidence "in the light most favorable to the
prosecution" and determine whether, considered in that light, the
- 31 -
"body of proof, as a whole, has sufficient bite to ground a
reasoned conclusion that the government proved each of the elements
of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v.
Lara, 181 F.3d 183, 200 (1st Cir. 1999). But, Williams did not
raise this challenge below, and so he must show that there was a
"clear and gross injustice," United States v. Morel, 885 F.3d 17,
22 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Marston, 694 F.3d
131, 134 (1st Cir. 2012)), which means that he must show at a
minimum that the evidence was plainly insufficient to support the
conviction, United States v. Valenzuela, 849 F.3d 477, 484 (1st
Cir. 2017) (explaining that the "clear and gross injustice"
standard is a "particularly exacting variant of plain error review"
(quoting United States v. Foley, 783 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 2015))).
He has not done so.
The evidence that the jury considered included, as the
government notes, a stipulation that "Williams had been previously
convicted of at least one crime punishable by a term of
imprisonment exceeding one year." It also included, the government
adds, both Hutchinson's testimony that Williams asked her to
purchase ammunition for him about a week before the robbery because
he claimed that he did not have identification and her testimony
that he asked her to store two firearms for him after the robbery.
Thus, we agree with the government that the record was not so
clearly insufficient that affirming the verdict would work a clear
- 32 -
and gross injustice, given the inference that the jury could have
drawn about Williams's knowledge of his status as a felon at the
time of his possession of the firearms from the fact that it knew
that he was a felon at that time and the testimony that it had
heard about his requests that Hutchinson purchase the ammunition
and store the firearms. See Maez, 960 F.3d at 967 (finding
sufficient evidence under de novo review to uphold a § 922(g)
conviction after Rehaif based on the defendant's stipulation and
"evasive behavior" when law enforcement conducted a search and
found firearms).
B.
Williams next trains his focus on the indictment, which
was handed up by the grand jury prior to Rehaif. It stated in
relevant part:
On about August 2, 2014, in the District of
Maine, the Defendant, Kourtney Williams[,]
having been convicted of the following crimes
punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding
one year, specifically, [three counts of
Larceny from a Person and four counts of
Assault with a Dangerous Weapon in violation
of Massachusetts law, and three counts of
Assault and one count of Robbery with a
Dangerous Weapon in violation of Maine law]
knowingly possessed, in and affecting
commerce, two firearms, specifically, [two 9mm
semi-automatic pistols]. Thus, the Defendant
violated Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(e).
Williams contends that the indictment did not charge him with the
felon-in-possession offense, because it failed to allege, per
- 33 -
Rehaif, that he had knowledge of his status as a felon at the time
of his firearms possession.
As an initial challenge, Williams contends that the
District Court had no jurisdiction to enter a judgment of
conviction for this felon-in-possession offense due to this defect
in the indictment. He further contends that, because a challenge
to a jurisdictional defect in an indictment is not subject to
waiver or forfeiture, the government is wrong to argue that this
challenge is subject to plain error review. See Mojica-Baez, 229
F.3d at 311.
Williams's jurisdictional challenge rests entirely on a
passage in United States v. Rosa-Ortiz, 348 F.3d 33 (1st Cir.
2003), in which we stated that "[a] federal court . . . lacks
jurisdiction to enter a judgment of conviction when the indictment
charges no offense under federal law." Id. at 36. But, we have
subsequently explained that this passage's reference to
"jurisdiction" was "an awkward locution" that "used the word
'jurisdiction' to refer to what the court considered a non-waivable
defect . . . not to the district court's power to adjudicate the
case." United States v. George, 676 F.3d 249, 259-60 (1st Cir.
2012); see also id. at 259 (explaining that courts have sometimes
used the term jurisdiction colloquially). As the United States
Supreme Court has explained, "defects in an indictment do not
deprive a court of its power to adjudicate a case." United States
- 34 -
v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). For that reason, in United
States v. Burghardt, 939 F.3d 397 (1st Cir. 2019), we found the
district court had jurisdiction to accept the defendant's plea of
guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm even though the
indictment, like Williams's, failed to allege that the defendant
had known he was a felon when he possessed the firearm. Id. at
400, 402. Thus, the District Court had jurisdiction here.
Williams separately contends that, even still, the
indictment was deficient and that our review is not for plain
error, as the government argues it is. He bases this contention
on his assertion that the indictment's omission of the reference
to the "knowingly" element of the offense constituted a structural
error, because he contends that it violated both his right under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be
indicted by a grand jury and his right under the Sixth Amendment
to the United States Constitution to be informed of the accusation
against him. See United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 617 F.3d 581,
604 (1st Cir. 2010) (explaining that the Supreme Court "has
classified an error as structural in only a very limited class of
cases," such as when there was a "complete denial of counsel,
presence of a biased trial judge, racial discrimination in the
selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial,
denial of a public trial, and offering a defective reasonable doubt
- 35 -
instruction" (quoting United States v. Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal, 355
F.3d 40, 48 (1st Cir. 2004))).
The plain error standard of review applies, however,
even to challenges to structural errors if they were not raised
below. See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466 (1997).
Thus, we must consider whether Williams can show that there was a
plain error here due to the Rehaif-based defect in the indictment
that he highlights.
We agree with Williams that the first two prongs of the
plain error standard -- "(1) an error, (2) that is clear or
obvious," United States v. Correa-Osorio, 784 F.3d 11, 18 (1st
Cir. 2015) -- are met. The indictment clearly failed to allege an
element of the offense. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S.
87, 117 (1974). The indictment references § 924(e) but not
§ 924(a)(2), which contains the language that sets forth the
knowledge-of-status element. And while the indictment uses the
word "knowingly" in describing the offense, it uses that word to
modify only "possessed . . . two firearms." The indictment thus
charged Williams only with knowledge of possession of the firearms,
not knowledge of his status as a felon at the time of his possession
of the firearms. See Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2196. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded by the government's argument that there was no
clear or obvious defect here. See Henderson v. United States, 568
U.S. 266, 268-69 (2013) (explaining that an error can be "plain"
- 36 -
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) if it is plain at
"the time of appellate review").
The third prong of the plain error standard requires
that the defendant show that a clear and obvious error "affect[ed]
his substantial rights." Correa-Osorio, 784 F.3d at 18. To make
that showing, a defendant must ordinarily "'show a reasonable
probability that, but for the error,' the outcome of the proceeding
would have been different." Molina-Martinez, 136 S. Ct. at 1343(quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76, 82
(2004)).
In Mojica-Baez, we reserved the possibility that an
indictment that omits an element might constitute structural error
for failing to provide the defendant fair notice of the offense
that he was charged with violating. 229 F.3d at 310-11. Here,
Williams's indictment, unlike the indictment in Mojica-Baez, did
not include a reference to the statutory provision that contained
the element that it omitted. See id. at 310. Nevertheless, we
need not decide whether Williams is right that, in consequence,
the error is structural, such that Williams need not show the
omission affected his substantial rights. For, we still must
assess whether the error "seriously affect[s] the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings," Cotton,
535 U.S. at 632-33; see also Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d at 310, and we
conclude that it does not.
- 37 -
The indictment presented to the grand jury identified
the following crimes of which Williams had been convicted that
were punishable by a term exceeding one year: one count of Larceny
from a Person under Massachusetts law, of which he was convicted
on November 26, 2007; four counts of Assault with a Dangerous
Weapon under Massachusetts law, of which he was convicted on
September 22, 2008; two counts of Larceny from a Person under
Massachusetts law, of which he was convicted on September 22, 2008;
and three counts of Assault and one count of Robbery with a
Dangerous Weapon under Maine law, of which he was convicted on
September 20, 2013. In light of at least the four relatively
recent and serious Maine convictions,8 as well as the judgment and
8 Williams argued after briefing was complete that his
Massachusetts convictions were not for felony offenses and that at
least four of the convictions -- the three counts of Assault and
one count of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon under Maine law -- do
not show that he knew of his status as a felon at the time of his
firearms possession because he tendered a plea of nolo contendere
to each of these offenses. It is not clear that his arguments on
this point are directed at his indictment challenge, let alone at
the fourth prong of plain error review with respect to that
challenge. But, in addition to the fact that they are waived
because he made them so late, see Leoner-Aguirre, 939 F.3d at 319
(finding arguments raised after the completion of briefing
waived), they are also undeveloped, as he points to no case law to
support the conclusion that a conviction based on a nolo plea
precludes a conviction for a felony offense from constituting a
conviction for a felony under Maine law or for the conclusion that,
because he entered a nolo plea to those crimes, he would not have
known that the felonies of which he was convicted in consequence
of the nolo pleas were felonies, see United States v. Zannino, 895
F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
- 38 -
commitment order for them -- in which Williams signed off that he
had received a copy of the order and understood the sentence
(eighteen months for each conviction, to run concurrently) that
had been imposed -- "the grand jury" "[s]urely" "would have also
found" the omitted element.9 Cotton, 535 U.S. at 633; see also
Johnson, 963 F.3d at 851-54; Maez, 960 F.3d at 966. His conclusory
assertions that a defendant's state of mind is hard to prove and
that the nature of his prior convictions was ambiguous do not show
otherwise. Nor does he develop any argument as to how the lack of
notice stemming from the omitted knowledge-of-status element
mattered, given this evidence of his prior criminal history.
To be sure, this is not a case where the defendant slept
on his rights, but, like Mojica-Baez, it also not one "where the
prosecutor failed to indict in accordance with the current state
of the law." Mojica-Baez, 229 F.3d at 310. Rather, it is a case
where the "indictment . . . was entirely proper at the time" that
it was put before the grand jury, as "[n]either the prosecution
nor defense counsel . . . anticipated that the Supreme Court would
rule as it did in [Rehaif]." Id. Here, as there, we conclude
9 Williams notes that this evidence was not introduced at
trial. But, he fails to develop an argument for why the fact that
the petit jury was unable to consider this evidence bears on the
question of whether it is appropriate for us to take this evidence
into account in deciding whether the omission of the knowledge-
of-status element from the indictment issued by the grand jury
constitutes plain error. See Zannino, 895 F.2d at 17.
- 39 -
that the defect in the indictment is not one that must be corrected
on plain error review, id. at 307-12; see also Cotton, 535 U.S. at
633, because the evidence that the element that was omitted has
been satisfied is nevertheless "'overwhelming' and 'essentially
uncontroverted'" and thus "there [is] 'no basis for concluding
that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings,'" Cotton, 535 U.S. at 633(quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 470).
C.
Williams's final Rehaif-based challenge to his felon-
in-possession conviction is to the District Court's instructions
on the elements of this offense. Those instructions, which were
given prior to Rehaif, did not include a reference to the
knowledge-of-status element of the offense. Williams did not
object to the jury instructions, however, and he makes no argument
on appeal for why the plain error standard would not apply to our
review of this claim. Thus, we again conduct our review only for
plain error, see United States v. Pennue, 770 F.3d 985, 989 (1st
Cir. 2014), and we again find none.
The government concedes that the failure to instruct the
jury on the knowledge element was clearly wrong under Rehaif. The
only questions on appeal, therefore, concern prongs three and
four -- whether Williams has shown both that the error "affected
[his] substantial rights" and that it "seriously impaired the
- 40 -
fairness[,] integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings." United States v. Severino-Pacheco, 911 F.3d 14, 20
(1st Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Perretta, 804 F.3d 53,
57 (1st Cir. 2015)).
At trial, the government did not introduce any evidence
of Williams's prior convictions beyond the stipulation, which the
government entered into on the correct understanding that, under
our then-prevailing precedent, it did not need to prove the
defendant's knowledge of his status of being a felon at the time
of his possession of the firearms. See Burghardt, 939 F.3d at 402
n.3; United States v. Miller, 954 F.3d 551, 559-60 (2d Cir. 2020).
But, as noted, the government had available to it evidence of
Williams's four recent and serious convictions from Maine, the
judgment and commitment order for those convictions, and
Williams's acknowledgement in that order that he had received it
and understood his sentence.
That evidence, it is true, is not in the trial record.
We note, however, that we regularly take judicial notice of such
state court records given their presumed reliability. See, e.g.,
United States v. Mercado, 412 F.3d 243, 247 (1st Cir. 2005); see
also Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2).
Moreover, the Supreme Court has never suggested that we
are categorically barred from taking into account evidence not
introduced at trial in considering whether an instructional error
- 41 -
satisfies the fourth prong of plain error review. Rather, it has
indicated that the hurdles such review imposes are intended in
large part to "reduce wasteful reversals." United States v.
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 75 (2004); see also United States
v. Morosco, 822 F.3d 1, 21 (1st Cir. 2016) (holding that, for a
defendant to show plain error, there must at least be a "threat of
a miscarriage of justice" (quoting United States v. Torres-
Rosario, 658 F.3d 110, 116 (1st Cir. 2011))). It has held,
furthermore, that such a wasteful reversal takes place if, after
a trial judge failed, without objection, to submit an element of
the offense to the jury, an appellate court vacated the conviction
for that offense in spite of "overwhelming" and "essentially
uncontroverted" evidence that the element was satisfied. Johnson,
520 U.S. at 470. And while Johnson involved overwhelming and
uncontroverted evidence that all appears to have been introduced
at trial, see id. at 464-65, 470 & n.2; Petition for Certiorari at
4a-5a, 9a, Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (No. 96-
203), the Supreme Court at no point suggested that its holding was
so limited. Rather, the Court's reluctance to vacate the
conviction of a defendant with "no plausible argument" that the
facts underlying the contested element of her offense of conviction
did not occur would seem to apply equally to Williams's appeal.
Id. at 470.
- 42 -
For that same reason, while it is true that, as Williams
notes, due process generally demands that we not "revise the basis
on which a defendant is convicted simply because the same result
would likely obtain on retrial," Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S.
100, 107 (1979); see also United States v. Didonna, 866 F.3d 40,
50 (1st Cir. 2017); Cola v. Reardon, 787 F.2d 681, 688, 701 (1st
Cir. 1986), that contention is not helpful to him. Dunn, Didonna,
and Cola did not involve an application of plain error review, and
thus did not have occasion to consider, in addition to whether a
constitutional violation occurred, whether the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings were
impacted by that violation. See Cotton, 535 U.S. at 634 ("[A]
constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil
cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right . . . ."
(alteration in original) (quoting Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S.
414, 444 (1944))). But, that is the precise inquiry that we must
engage in here.
We find it significant, moreover, that the government's
failure to introduce additional evidence of Williams's knowledge
of his status as a felon was not a problem of its own making.
Under our precedent at the time of trial, the government did not
have to introduce evidence that Williams knew of the nature of his
prior conviction to prove his guilt of the felon-in-possession
offense. See Burghardt, 939 F.3d at 402 n.3. The law at the time,
- 43 -
then, only allowed the government to introduce evidence of those
convictions insofar as it helped to show that Williams was actually
a felon, not to show that he was aware he was one. So, in providing
only the limited evidence it did concerning his convictions at
trial, the government was acting in accord with the requirements
of proof at the time. See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S.
172, 191-92 (1997) (setting forth limits on evidence that may be
used to prove a defendant's status as a felon at the time of
firearms possession when the defendant stipulates to being a felon
at that time).
Thus, at least here, it would be the overturning, and
not the affirming, of the conviction on the basis of the newly
raised challenge under Rehaif that would "seriously affect the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings." Johnson, 963 F.3d at 852-54 (discussing Johnson,
520 U.S. at 470, and Cotton, 535 U.S. at 633-34, in concluding
that "the fourth prong of plain-error review is designed, in part,
to weed out cases in which correction of an unpreserved error would
ultimately have no effect on the judgment"); see also Miller, 954
F.3d at 559-60 (relying on, at prong four of plain error review,
"reliable evidence in the record on appeal that was not a part of
the trial record," including evidence of a prior conviction, to
reject a defendant's post-Rehaif challenge to his § 922(g)
conviction based on erroneous jury instructions); United States v.
- 44 -
Hollingshed, 940 F.3d 410, 415-16 (8th Cir. 2019) (considering a
defendant's convictions that were not before the jury, among other
evidence, in declining to reverse a defendant's § 922(g)
conviction post-Rehaif based on an erroneous jury instruction).10
VII.
There remains, then, only the challenges that Williams
brings to the sentence that the District Court imposed. Williams
argues that the District Court erred in sentencing him to a
mandatory minimum prison sentence of eighty-four months for his
§ 924(c) conviction. Lara purported to join this sentencing
challenge in his reply brief, and we again assume that Lara has
not waived the challenge, but describe the challenge as Williams's
alone. The government agrees that, because Williams's conviction
under § 924(c) must be reversed in light of Davis, his challenge
to the sentence imposed for this conviction is moot. We thus do
not address the merits of this challenge.
Additionally, Williams argues that the District Court
erred in: (1) determining that he was a career offender under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1; and (2) calculating his offense level; and
(3) determining his criminal history category. The government and
Williams agree that, because Williams's sentence as a whole must
10 For the reasons already mentioned, see supra note 8,
Williams's belated contention that his convictions do not show his
knowledge of status fails.
- 45 -
be vacated due to our reversal of his § 924(c) conviction, this
Court need not address Williams's remaining sentencing
challenges.11
VIII.
We thus affirm all of Lara's and Williams's convictions,
save for their convictions for violating § 924(c), which are
reversed, and remand this case to the District Court for
resentencing.
11
The government has agreed that, if this Court remands this
case for resentencing without addressing these additional
sentencing issues that Williams raised, Williams can raise these
arguments again before the District Court. Additionally, at oral
argument, the government agreed that, if Williams files a notice
of appeal following resentencing and raises the sentencing issues
that he had raised to this Court in briefing, the government will
not argue that this Court is barred from hearing the claims based
on the law-of-the-case doctrine.
- 46 -