[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-12562 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-60051-CR-1-DTKH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CLARENCE NOBLE JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(February 23, 2010)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Clarence Noble Jackson appeals his convictions and sentences for
being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and
924(e). Jackson raises a number of issues on appeal. First, he argues that the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements that he made
during an interview with detectives. He notes that the detectives did not advise
him of his Miranda1 rights, and he asserts that the interview became custodial once
the detectives made it clear that he was a suspect in a murder investigation. Next,
Jackson argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to sever the
counts of the superseding indictment for separate trials. Jackson further contends
that the district court abused its discretion by not giving a jury instruction on the
affirmative defense of justification. Finally, Jackson argues that his 235-month
sentences are substantively unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.
I.
“Whether a person was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings is a
mixed question of law and fact.” United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354, 1361
(11th Cir. 2001). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and
its application of the law to those facts de novo. Id. A defendant is considered to
be in custody when, “under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable man in
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
2
his position would feel a restraint on his freedom of movement . . . to such extent
that he would not feel free to leave.” Id. at 1362 (quoting United States v. Moya,
74 F.3d 1117, 1119 (11th Cir. 1996)). “The test is objective: the actual, subjective
beliefs of the defendant and the interviewing officer on whether the defendant was
free to leave are irrelevant.” Id. “The fact that an investigation has focused on a
suspect does not necessarily trigger the need for Miranda warnings.” United States
v. Muegge, 225 F.3d 1267, 1270 (11th Cir. 2000). “[T]here is no fixed limit to the
length of questioning.” McDowell, 250 F.3d at 1363.
Detective Toyota testified at the suppression hearing that Jackson went to
the police station on his own initiative and voluntarily agreed to speak with the
detectives regarding his carjacking. Detective Toyota stated that they did not
handcuff Jackson and did not tell him that he was under arrest. Detective Toyota
also testified that the interview took place in a locked room, but the detectives did
allow Jackson to leave the room so that he could speak to his girlfriend in the
lobby. Even after Detective Toyota informed Jackson that the individual who had
stolen his vehicle, Evans, had been killed, and Jackson inquired whether he was
going to be arrested, the officers assured him that they were just trying to get to the
bottom of the homicide. Jackson’s interview lasted an hour and a half, and the
detectives offered him water. Jackson continued to receive phone calls, and took
3
the initiative in ending the interview. Under the totality of the circumstances, it
appears that a reasonable person in Jackson’s situation would have felt free to
terminate the interview and leave. Therefore, we conclude that the district court
properly denied Jackson’s motion to suppress.
II.
We review the district court’s denial of a severance motion for a clear abuse
of discretion. United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 385 (11th Cir. 1993). Under the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, two or more offenses may be charged in the
same indictment if the offenses charged “are of the same or similar character, or
are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts
of a common scheme or plan.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a). Even where counts are
properly joined under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a), the district court may sever counts for
separate trials if joinder “appears to prejudice a defendant.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 14(a).
To obtain reversal of a district court’s denial of a severance motion, a defendant
must make a showing of “compelling prejudice” against which the district court
offered no protection. Walser, 3 F.3d at 386. Compelling prejudice exists if, under
all of the circumstances of the particular case, it appears that the jurors were unable
to independently evaluate the evidence with respect to each count. See id. at 386-
87 (discussing severance of defendants). Severance is not required if the possible
4
prejudice may be cured by a cautionary instruction. Id. at 387.
In this case, both counts of the indictment charged Jackson with being a
felon in possession of a firearm. Because both counts were “of the same or similar
character,” they were properly joined for trial under Rule 8(a). In addition,
Jackson has failed to show that he suffered compelling prejudice from the joinder
of Counts 1 and 2. The district court instructed the jury to give independent
consideration to both counts, and Jackson has failed to show that the jurors were
unable to follow that instruction. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court
did not commit a clear abuse of discretion by denying Jackson’s motion to sever.
III.
“We review a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction for
an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Palma, 511 F.3d 1311, 1314-15 (11th
Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 215 (2008). “A defendant ‘is entitled to have
presented instructions relating to a theory of defense for which there is any
foundation in the evidence, even though the evidence may be weak, insufficient,
inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility.’” Id. at 1315 (quoting United States v.
Lively, 803 F.2d 1124, 1126 (11th Cir. 1986)). “In determining whether there is a
proper evidentiary foundation for the instruction, the evidence must be viewed in
5
the light most favorable to the accused.” Id.
“The criminal offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is a strict liability offense, which ordinarily renders a
defendant’s state of mind irrelevant.” United States v. Bell, 214 F.3d 1299, 1300
(11th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, we have recognized that justification may be an
affirmative defense to violations of § 922(g)(1) in “extraordinary circumstances.”
United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2000). A defendant
must show the following four elements to establish a justification defense:
(1) that the defendant was under unlawful and present, imminent, and
impending threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) that the
defendant did not negligently or recklessly place himself in a situation
where he would be forced to engage in criminal conduct; (3) that the
defendant had no reasonable legal alternative to violating the law; and
(4) that there was a direct causal relationship between the criminal
action and the avoidance of the threatened harm.
Id. “The first prong requires nothing less than an immediate emergency.” United
States v. Rice, 214 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2000). In Rice, we held that the
defendant was not entitled to a justification defense because there was no
immediate emergency when the defendant, who had been repeatedly threatened
and attacked by a gang over a period of several months, retrieved a gun
immediately after being threatened by members of the same gang. Id. at 1297-98.
Similarly, in Bell, we held that a defendant was not under an imminent threat when
6
he possessed a shotgun three days after an attack on his home. Bell, 214 F.3d
at 1301.
In this case, Jackson failed to show that he possessed the .40 caliber firearm
in response to an immediate emergency, since his argument with Evans occurred
two days before his possession of that firearm. Jackson also failed to show that he
had no legal alternative to possessing the firearm. In particular, he did not explain
why he could not have reported the threats made by Evans to the police in the two
days prior to the carjacking. Finally, Jackson offered no evidence that he was
under an imminent threat when he possessed the .38 caliber firearm two weeks
later. Because Jackson did not meet his burden of introducing some evidence to
support all of the elements of a justification defense, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct the jury with respect to
that defense.
IV.
We review a sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness, using
an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence,
we must ensure, first, “that the district court committed no significant procedural
error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
7
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Next, we must consider
whether the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a)
factors. Id. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. These factors include, among other things:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the history and characteristics
of the defendant; (3) the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment; (4) the need for
adequate deterrence; (5) the need to protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant; and (6) the defendant’s advisory guideline range. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We have “recognize[d] that there is a range of reasonable sentences from
which the district court may choose.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788
(11th Cir. 2005). The burden of proof lies with the party challenging the
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. We ordinarily expect a sentence within the
defendant’s advisory guideline range to be reasonable. Id. In addition, we “will
defer to the district court’s judgment regarding the weight given to the § 3553(a)
factors unless the district court has made a clear error of judgment.” United States
v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
omitted), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2848 (2009).
8
The record demonstrates that Jackson was convicted of possessing a second
firearm less than one month after agents discovered the first firearm in his vehicle.
Jackson had a lengthy criminal history, and two of his prior convictions involved
the illegal possession or use of firearms. Therefore, Jackson’s 235-month
sentences were appropriate based upon his history and characteristics, the nature
and circumstances of his offenses, the need to promote respect for the law, and the
need to protect the public from further crimes committed by Jackson. We also note
that Jackson’s sentences are at the low end of his advisory guideline range, which
we ordinarily expect to be reasonable. Thus, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jackson to two concurrent terms of 235
months’ imprisonment.
Accordingly, we affirm Jackson’s convictions and sentences.
AFFIRMED.
9