United States v. Wilson ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40591 Document: 00516740033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
May 5, 2023
No. 22-40591 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Steven Dewayne Wilson,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
No. 4:18-CR-219-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Following a jury trial, Stephen Dewayne Wilson was convicted of
possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and was
sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he raises numerous
challenges to the validity of his conviction.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40591 Document: 00516740033 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2023
No. 22-40591
First, Wilson asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion
to suppress, arguing that the search warrant lacked the particularity required
by the Fourth Amendment because it described the property to be searched
with the wrong postal address. He urges that the good-faith exception to the
exclusionary rule does not apply because the officers could not objectively
rely in good faith on a warrant with the wrong address, particularly as there
was a mailbox nearby indicating the correct address.
On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, this court reviews
the district court’s factual findings for clear error and the ultimate
constitutionality of the actions by law enforcement de novo. United States
v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.), modified on denial of reh’g, 622 F.3d 383(5th Cir. 2010). A district court’s ruling on a suppression motion should be
upheld “if there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it.” United
States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
This court engages in a two-step inquiry when reviewing a district
court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress when a search warrant is
involved. United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 1999). First,
this court determines whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary
rule, announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applies.
Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407. If so, no further analysis is conducted, and the
district court’s denial of the motion to suppress will be affirmed. Id. If not,
the court proceeds to the second step, “ensur[ing] that the magistrate had a
substantial basis for . . . concluding that probable cause existed.” Id. (second
alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, Wilson’s challenge to the correctness of the address listed in
the warrant implicates, at best, a technical error. See, e.g., United States
v. Benavides, 854 F.2d 701, 701–02 (5th Cir. 1988). Even assuming that the
2
Case: 22-40591 Document: 00516740033 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2023
No. 22-40591
address listed in the warrant was incorrect, there was no evidence of bad faith
on the executing officers’ part. And, as the district court observed, the
executing officers objectively believed the warrant to be valid, were familiar
with the property, had a long history of responding to 911 calls at that location
(including as recently as the previous evening), exhibited no confusion as to
the property to be searched, and searched only the camper, two pickup
trucks, and two trailers identified in the search warrant. The good faith
exception therefore applies, and the district court’s denial of the motion must
be upheld. See United States v. Gordon, 901 F.2d 48, 50 (5th Cir. 1990); see
also Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407; Michelletti, 13 F.3d at 841.
Next, Wilson argues that the district court erred in refusing to instruct
the jury on the defense of justification. To prevail on such a defense, the
defendant must show (1) he “was under an unlawful and present, imminent,
and impending threat of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious body injury”; (2) he “had not recklessly or
negligently placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he
would be forced to choose the criminal conduct”; (3) he “had no reasonable
legal alternative to violating the law”—that is, no chance “to refuse to do the
criminal act and . . . to avoid the threatened harm”; and (4) “a direct causal
relationship may be reasonably anticipated between the criminal action taken
and the avoidance of the threatened harm.” United States v. Posada-Rios, 158
F.3d 832, 873 (5th Cir. 1998) (cleaned up). “The defendant must also prove
a fifth element: that he possessed the firearm only during the time of
danger.” United States v. Penn, 969 F.3d 450, 455 (5th Cir. 2020).
This court reviews de novo a district court’s refusal to provide an
instruction on a defense that, if believed, would preclude a guilty verdict. Id.A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a defense “only if he presents
sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.” Id. (internal
quotation and citation omitted). He “must produce evidence to sustain a
3
Case: 22-40591 Document: 00516740033 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/05/2023
No. 22-40591
finding on each element of the defense before it may be presented to the
jury.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). In determining whether
the defendant has made this threshold showing, this court reviews the
evidence and inferences to be taken therefrom in the light most favorable to
the defendant. Id.In the felon-in-possession context, courts construe the justification
defense “‘very narrowly’ and limit its application to the ‘rarest of
occasions.’” Id. This court has explained that the defense is generally
unavailable unless the defendant “did nothing more than disarm someone in
the heat of a dangerous moment,” and possessed a gun only briefly to prevent
injury to himself or someone else. Id. (internal quotation and citation
omitted).
Even when construed most favorably to Wilson, the evidence,
including his own testimony, does not establish the rare, exigent
circumstances necessary to support the justification defense. See id.; see also
United States v. Panter, 688 F.2d 268, 269, 270–72 (5th Cir. 1982). The
evidence instead showed that Wilson never complained to police that he was
in fear for his life or that he needed the weapon to defend himself against
threats from his purported accoster, and there was nothing to show that, at
the time he obtained the rifle, the alleged accoster was actively threatening
him with likely death or bodily injury such that he had an immediate need to
arm himself. To the contrary, Wilson was nowhere near the alleged attacker
when he acquired the rifle. The evidence fails to show that the rifle was
necessary to prevent immediate injury to himself or someone else at the time
he possessed it and thus did not support any “present, imminent, or
impending threat,” for purposes of the defense of justification. Posada-Rios,
158 F.3d at 874; see also Penn, 969 F.3d at 455; Panter, 688 F.2d at 270–72.
4
Case: 22-40591 Document: 00516740033 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/05/2023
No. 22-40591
Furthermore, the justification defense would insulate Wilson only for
possession during the time of the alleged endangerment. See Penn, 969 F.3d
at 455. “Possession either before the danger or for any significant period after
it remains a violation.” Panter, 688 F.2d at 272. The trial evidence
established that he possessed the rifle for, at a minimum, several hours
following his allegedly threatening encounter. Wilson therefore fails to
demonstrate the permissible limited duration of possession for purposes of
establishing the defense. See id.; United States v. Harper, 802 F.2d 115, 118
(5th Cir. 1986). The district court thus did not err in refusing Wilson’s
requested jury instruction. See Penn, 969 F.3d at 455; Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d
at 874; Panter, 688 F.2d at 270–72.
Relatedly, Wilson asserts that the district court erred in excluding the
testimony of John Blackwell, a bank vice president, to the effect that, several
weeks after his arrest, checks were forged on his account. Wilson contends
that the testimony would have corroborated his testimony that his camper
had been burglarized, was probative of his fear at the time of the incident, and
would have supported a justification defense. Wilson’s conclusional
assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in determining that Blackwell’s proposed testimony about check
forgeries was not relevant either to defeat the elements of a § 922(g) offense
or to establish a justification defense given that the forgeries postdated the
firearms offense by several weeks and had no bearing on whether Wilson
faced an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury at the time he
committed the offense. See Fed. R. Evid. 401; Fed. R. Evid. 402; see
also United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 606 (5th Cir. 2013).
For the first time on appeal, Wilson contends that the statute of
conviction, § 922(g), is unconstitutional on its face because it does not have
a substantial effect on interstate commerce and thus exceeds Congress’s
authority under the Commerce Clause. However, as he concedes, this
5
Case: 22-40591 Document: 00516740033 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/05/2023
No. 22-40591
argument is foreclosed by United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir.
2013). See United States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020).
Wilson additionally argues, also for the first time on appeal, that
§ 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment.
Because he did not raise this argument in the district court, review is for plain
error only. See United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1994). To
demonstrate plain error, Wilson must show a forfeited error that is clear or
obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556
U.S. 129, 135 (2009). An error is not clear or obvious where an issue is
disputed or unresolved, or where there is an absence of controlling authority.
See United States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 230–31 (5th Cir. 2009). In
fact, “[e]ven where the argument requires only extending authoritative
precedent, the failure of the district court [to do so] cannot be plain error.”
Wallace v. Mississippi, 43 F.4th 482, 500 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation
and citation omitted). Because there is no binding precedent holding that
§ 922(g)(1) unconstitutional, Wilson is unable to demonstrate an error that
is clear or obvious. See Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d at 230–31.
The district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
6