United States v. Victor Ricardo Grant

USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 1 of 14

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10910
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICTOR RICARDO GRANT,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00050-WFJ-CPT-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 2 of 14

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10910

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Victor Ricardo Grant appeals his conviction for one count of
possessing ammunition as a felon and his corresponding 262-
month sentence of imprisonment. On appeal, Grant makes two
arguments. First, he argues that the district court erred in denying
his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient
evidence for a jury to find that he possessed the ammunition. Sec-
ond, he contends, for the first time on appeal, that the district court
erred at sentencing when it found that his prior state drug convic-
tions constituted “serious drug offense[s]” under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”), because federal drug schedules did not
prohibit the conduct underlying those convictions at the time of
his federal ammunition offense. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
A federal grand jury indicted Grant for knowingly pos-
sessing ammunition after having been convicted of a felony in vio-
lation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e).
Grant proceeded to trial, and the parties stipulated that
Grant had been convicted of felonies and had no right to possess a
firearm or ammunition. At trial, FBI special agent Sarah Andre-
asen testified about a SWAT team’s lawful search of Grant’s family
residence. Andreasen testified that the residence’s master bedroom
had two closets, with the closet to the left containing female cloth-
ing and a closet to the right containing male clothing. The right-
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 3 of 14

22-10910 Opinion of the Court 3

side closet with male clothing contained a black backpack, which
itself contained four orange traffic vests, fifteen boxes of 7.62-mil-
limeter ammunition, a plastic bag with additional ammunition, and
earplugs. Law enforcement discovered a laundry receipt with
Grant’s name on it near the backpack. The residence’s attic, the
master bedroom’s left-side closet, and a purse in the living room
that belonged to Grant’s wife all also contained ammunition.
Another law enforcement officer testified that he observed
Grant take a black backpack out of his car and wear it at least four
or five times when returning to his residence. Other detectives ob-
served the same pattern of Grant taking the backpack out of his
car and wearing it. An employee of the Hillsborough County Sher-
iff’s Office testified that her unit did not find fingerprints on the
ammunition uncovered by law enforcement. And a forensic analyst
for the FBI testified that the agency did not recover DNA from the
ammunition.
After the government rested, Grant moved for a judgment
of acquittal, arguing that no reasonable juror could find that he
possessed the ammunition seized by law enforcement. The district
court denied the motion.
Grant then called his wife, Melissa Grant, as a witness. She
testified that she moved her husband’s black backpack from the liv-
ing room to his closet before the search. She confirmed that the
master bedroom’s right-side closet containing male clothes was ex-
clusively her husband’s.
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 4 of 14

4 Opinion of the Court 22-10910

Grant also testified in his own defense. He testified that he
knew nothing about and never possessed the ammunition seized
by law enforcement. He acknowledged that the right-side closet
was his, but he testified that he did not recall ever seeing or know-
ing about the black backpack found in the closet. Grant also admit-
ted, however, that he used a black backpack to take spare clothes to
work.
Grant renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal after
the defense rested and again at the end of trial. The district court
denied the motion both times. The jury returned a verdict finding
Grant guilty.
The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) described
Grant’s offense conduct by reference to the evidence presented at
trial. Based on these facts, the PSI initially calculated a base offense
level of 20, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1and added two points for
obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on Grant’s false
statements under oath about his offense. The PSI also applied an
armed career criminal offense level enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.4 because Grant had at least three prior convictions for a vi-
olent felony or serious drug offense and was thus subject to an en-
hanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The PSI applied the en-
hancement based on the following convictions: three in December
2001 for the sale of cocaine, and one for aggravated assault in 2005.
Grant committed the three drug offenses on separate occasions in
February and May of 2001. After this enhancement was applied,
the PSI calculated a total offense level of 33 for Grant.
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 5 of 14

22-10910 Opinion of the Court 5

The PSI further calculated that Grant had a criminal history
score of 10, establishing a criminal history category of V under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(c)(1). Based on Grant’s total offense level of 33 and
criminal history category of V, the PSA calculated that Grant’s
guideline range was 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment, subject to
a statutory minimum of 15 years imprisonment. Before sentenc-
ing, Grant objected to the PSI’s obstruction-of-justice enhance-
ment. But Grant did not object to the PSI’s finding that his state
drug convictions qualified as “serious drug offense[s]” under the
ACCA.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court found that the
PSI properly calculated Grant’s guideline range and therefore over-
ruled Grant’s objection to the obstruction-of-justice enhancement.
Grant sought a downward variance and a sentence of only 185
months’ imprisonment or, alternatively, a sentence at the low end
of his guidelines range. Grant, again, did not object to the PSI’s
determination that his state drug convictions were “serious drug
offense[s]” under the ACCA. The government argued that Grant
should be sentenced at the high end of his guidelines range given
the totality of the circumstances of the case. The district court
then sentenced Grant to 262 months’ imprisonment, followed by
five years of supervised release. After sentencing Grant, the district
court asked if Grant had any further objections, and Grant’s coun-
sel answered that he did not.
This timely appeal ensued.
II.
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 6 of 14

6 Opinion of the Court 22-10910

We review de novo the denial of a defendant’s properly pre-
served motion for judgment of acquittal, “viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reason-
able factual inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict.” United States
v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1284 (11th Cir. 2009). We will uphold the
district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal “if a
reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the evidence establishes
the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Rodriguez, 218 F.3d 1243, 1244 (11th Cir. 2000). “It is not necessary
that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of inno-
cence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that
of guilt, provided a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evi-
dence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Vera, 701 F.2d 1349, 1357 (11th Cir. 1983) (alteration omitted) (quot-
ing United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en
banc)). This is so because “[a] jury is free to choose among reason-
able constructions of the evidence.” Id. (quoting Bell, 678 F.2d at
549). Thus, “we must sustain the verdict where there is a reasona-
ble basis in the record for it.” United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294,
1333 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257,
1270 (11th Cir. 2005)).
“The test for sufficiency of evidence is identical regardless
of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, and ‘no distinc-
tion is to be made between the weight given to either direct or cir-
cumstantial evidence.’” United States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652,
656–57 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez, 719 F.2d
1516, 1521 (11th Cir. 1983)). But when “the government relies on
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 7 of 14

22-10910 Opinion of the Court 7

circumstantial evidence, reasonable inferences, not mere specula-
tion, must support the conviction.” United States v. Mendez, 528 F.3d
811, 814 (11th Cir. 2008).
We generally review de novo challenges to an enhancement
under the ACCA. United States v. Smith, 983 F.3d 1213, 1222 (11th
Cir. 2020). When a defendant does not state the grounds for an
objection in the district court, however, we review for plain error.
United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1087 (11th Cir. 2003). To prevail
under plain-error review, a defendant must demonstrate “that there
is: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’”
United States v. Jones, 743 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting
United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005)).
Once the defendant makes that showing, we have discretion to no-
tice the forfeited error “only if (4) the error seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
(quoting Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298).
III.
To convict a defendant of being a felon in possession of am-
munition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant knowingly pos-
sessed a firearm or ammunition, (2) the defendant was a felon, and
(3) the firearm or ammunition was in or affecting interstate com-
merce. United States v. Green, 873 F.3d 846, 852 (11th Cir. 2017).
Possession can be actual or constructive. See United States v.
Ochoa, 941 F.3d 1074, 1104–05 (11th Cir. 2019) (concluding that the
jury had sufficient evidence to find that the defendant
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 8 of 14

8 Opinion of the Court 22-10910

constructively possessed ammunition after tying him to the bed-
room where it was found through his phones, personal identifica-
tion cards, and travel papers in the room, along with a driver’s li-
cense that bore the address of the residence in question). Construc-
tive possession may be exclusive or shared with others. See United
States v. Flanders, 752 F.3d 1317, 1332 (11th Cir. 2014). To establish
constructive possession, whether exclusive or joint, the govern-
ment must offer evidence showing that the “defendant has owner-
ship, dominion, or control over an object or the premises where the
object is found.” Id. “[A] defendant’s mere presence in the area of
[an object] or awareness of its location is not sufficient to establish
possession.” Green, 873 F.3d at 852–53 (second alteration in origi-
nal) (quoting United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 841 (11th Cir.
2009)). A defendant has constructive possession of ammunition or
a firearm if the government proves, either through direct or cir-
cumstantial evidence, that he “(1) was aware or knew of [its] pres-
ence and (2) had the ability and intent to later exercise dominion
and control over [it].” United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568, 576 (11th
Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Molina, 443 F.3d 824, 830 (11th Cir.
2006) (reversing a grant of judgment of acquittal where a reasona-
ble jury could have found that the defendant exerted dominion or
control over a firearm because it was in her bedroom nightstand
that also contained her passport).
We have also held that if a defendant takes the stand and tes-
tifies, the factfinder not only does not have to believe his testimony,
but it can also take the opposite position and consider his testimony
as evidence of his guilt. See United States v. Hughes, 840 F.3d 1368,
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 9 of 14

22-10910 Opinion of the Court 9

1385 (11th Cir. 2016) (“[A] statement by a defendant, if disbelieved
by the jury, may be considered as substantive evidence of the de-
fendant’s guilt.” (quoting United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354,
1367 (11th Cir. 2001))).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the gov-
ernment, we conclude that the district court properly denied
Grant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was
sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt
that he constructively possessed the ammunition. See Jiminez,
564 F.3d at 1284. The evidence elicited at trial showed that law en-
forcement found the ammunition in Grant’s closet, inside his black
backpack, and near a laundry receipt with his name on it. That
evidence permitted a reasonable inference that Grant construc-
tively possessed the ammunition. See, e.g., Ochoa, 941 F.3d at 1105;
Molina, 443 F.3d at 829–830; see also United States v. Brown, 587 F.3d
1082, 1091–92 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that sufficient evidence sup-
ported jury’s finding that the defendant possessed a firearm when
law enforcement found seven firearms in a bedroom closet and the
defendant’s identification cards in the bedroom).
And despite Grant’s testimony that he did not know about
the ammunition in the closet and that his wife put the backpack in
his closet, the jury was entitled to disbelieve him. See Hughes, 840
F.3d at 1385. The jury likewise was entitled to view his testimony
as substantive evidence of his guilt. See id. Indeed, Grant’s testi-
mony that he wore a black backpack to work, viewed in the light
most favorable to the jury’s verdict, supported the government’s
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 10 of 14

10 Opinion of the Court 22-10910

argument that Grant possessed the ammunition in the backpack
found in his closet.
We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Grant’s motion
for judgment of acquittal.
IV.
Grant also appeals his sentence on the ground that his prior
state drug convictions were not “serious drug offense[s]” within the
meaning of the ACCA. The ACCA requires that any person who
violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) serve a mandatory minimum sentence
of fifteen years when the defendant has three prior convictions for
violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on occasions
different from one another. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The ACCA de-
fines a “serious drug offense,” in relevant part, as “an offense under
State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with
intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance (as de-
fined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
§ 802)).” Id. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). We have held that federal law gov-
erns the meaning of terms in the ACCA and state law governs the
elements of state law crimes. Jackson v. United States (Jackson II), 55
F.4th 846, 850 (11th Cir. 2022), cert. granted, 143 S. Ct. 2457 (2023).
Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act defines a “con-
trolled substance” as any substance on the federal controlled sub-
stances schedules. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(6), 812. The current version
of the federal drug schedules expressly excludes ioflupane. 21
C.F.R. § 1308.12(b)(4)(ii). But the federal drug schedules included
ioflupane until 2015. Jackson II, 55 F.4th at 851 & n.4.
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 11 of 14

22-10910 Opinion of the Court 11

At the time of Grant’s drug offenses in February and May
2001, the list of “controlled substances” in Florida included
“[c]ocaine or ecgonine, including any of their stereoisomers, and
any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of cocaine or ecgon-
ine.” Fla. Stat. § 893.03(2)(a)(4) (amendments effective from Octo-
ber 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001). It did not specifically include or ex-
clude ioflupane. Id.
We apply the categorical approach to determine whether a
defendant’s state conviction is a serious drug offense under the
ACCA. Jackson II, 55 F.4th at 850. Under the categorical approach,
we consider the statutory definition of the state offense rather than
the facts of the crime itself. Id. A state conviction qualifies only if
the state statute under which the conviction occurred defines the
offense in the same way as, or more narrowly than, the ACCA’s
definition of a serious drug offense. Id.
In Jackson I, decided in June 2022 after Grant’s sentencing,
we vacated a defendant’s ACCA-enhanced sentence, holding that
his Florida cocaine-related offenses did not qualify as serious drug
offenses under the ACCA. United States v. Jackson (Jackson I), 36
F.4th 1294, 1306 (11th Cir. 2022). We determined that the federal
controlled substances schedules that defined a serious drug offense
under the ACCA were those in effect when the defendant commit-
ted his federal offense and that those schedules did not cover io-
flupane at the time he committed his federal offense. See id. at
1299–302. Since the relevant Florida statute covered ioflupane
when he was convicted of his prior cocaine-related offenses, we
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 12 of 14

12 Opinion of the Court 22-10910

held that the state statute was broader than the relevant version of
the federal controlled substances schedules, and the defendant’s
prior cocaine-related convictions thus did not qualify as serious
drug offenses. Id. at 1303–04.
In December 2022, however, we vacated our decision in Jack-
son I and held, in Jackson II, that the defendant’s Florida cocaine-re-
lated convictions qualified as serious drug offenses. Jackson II,
55 F.4th at 861–62. We held that the ACCA’s definition of a serious
drug offense incorporates the version of the federal controlled sub-
stances schedules in effect when the defendant was convicted of
the prior state drug offense. Id. at 854. We then concluded that the
defendant’s 1998 and 2004 Florida cocaine-related convictions qual-
ified because Florida’s controlled substances schedules included io-
flupane until 2017 and the federal controlled substance schedules
also included ioflupane until 2015. Id. at 851 & nn.3–4. We deter-
mined that the Florida controlled substances schedules included io-
flupane because Florida later amended its schedules to exclude io-
flupane. Id. at 851 n.3. Jackson then sought certiorari, which the
Supreme Court granted in May 2023. The Supreme Court also
consolidated Jackson II with another case, see United States v. Brown,
47 F. 4th 147 (3d Cir. 2022), cert. granted, 143 S. Ct. 2458 (2023), and
the cases remain pending.
Again, because Grant did not object to the PSI’s finding that
his state drug convictions qualified as “serious drug offense[s]” un-
der the ACCA, we review his ACCA enhancement for plain error.
Zinn, 321 F.3d at 1087.
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 13 of 14

22-10910 Opinion of the Court 13

Grant concedes that, under our current precedent, the dis-
trict court committed no error in applying an ACCA enhancement
to his sentence. Grant acknowledges that our decision in Jackson II
forecloses his argument that his prior state drug convictions were
not serious drug offenses because the federal and Florida drug
schedules in effect at the time of those convictions included io-
flupane. That concession fully resolves Grant’s appeal because we,
as a panel, are bound by Jackson II’s holding. Under our prior prec-
edent rule, we must follow a prior panel precedent “unless and un-
til it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court.”
United States v. Brown, 342 F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003). Alt-
hough the Supreme Court will soon review Jackson II, a grant of
certiorari by the Supreme Court does not in itself change the law.
See Rutherford v. McDonough, 466 F.3d 970, 977 (11th Cir. 2006).
In addition, the error that Grant asserts the district court
committed was not plain. We have made clear that “[w]here the
explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an
issue, there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from
the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it.” United
States v. Verdeza, 69 F.4th 780, 791 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting United
States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 2005)). Indeed, an error
qualifies as plain only if it is “‘obvious’ or ‘clear under current law.’”
United States v. Laines, 69 F.4th 1221, 1233 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting
United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Here, we have directly resolved the relevant issue against Grant’s
position. See Jackson II, 55 F.4th at 854, 861–62. And because the
district court’s decision to enhance Grant’s sentence under the
USCA11 Case: 22-10910 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 08/15/2023 Page: 14 of 14

14 Opinion of the Court 22-10910

ACCA is consistent with our current law, the alleged error is, by
definition, not plain. See, e.g., Laines, 69 F.4th at 1233–34 (holding
that the defendant did not carry his burden of showing plain error
because our precedents expressly rejected his argument that an er-
ror occurred, and he did not identify any decision abrogating or
overruling these precedents).
In short, we conclude that the district court did not plainly
err when it enhanced Grant’s sentence under the ACCA. Accord-
ingly, we affirm Grant’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.