[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-10153 MAY 18, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cr-00036-CEH-DNF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARRYL LAMAR POWELL,
a.k.a. Darrell Powell,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 18, 2012)
Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and HIGGINBOTHAM,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
___________________________
*Honorable Patrick E. Higginbotham, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit,
sitting by designation.
Darryl Lamar Powell appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of
a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
922(g) and 924(e). The Court has considered all of Powell’s specifications of
error, including:
(1) whether two of Powell’s prior state convictions, which serve as the basis
for his Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement, were “committed on
occasions different from one another,” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 924(e);
(2) whether a jury must determine beyond a reasonable doubt the facts
underlying the ACCA’s statutory requirements, specifically, whether the prior
crimes were committed on different occasions;
(3) whether the district court improperly admitted evidence pursuant to Fed.
R. Evid. 404(b), and failed to grant a mistrial;
(4) whether parts of the government’s closing statement provided grounds
for a mistrial;
(5) whether the effects of the trial errors cumulatively denied Powell a fair
trial;
(6) whether the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment;
(7) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions;
(8) whether the information that supplied probable cause to search Powell’s
2
residence was stale; and
(9) whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s
authority under the Commerce Clause.
After review and consideration of the briefs and the record, and having the
benefit of oral argument, we find no harmful error in the proceedings in the district
court. Therefore, the decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3