Anthony Mackey was convicted in the Middle District of Florida for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The case involved a pistol and a shotgun found in a car Mackey was driving. On appeal, Mackey raised two primary arguments. First, he claimed the government committed plain error during closing arguments by arguing facts not in evidence regarding the ownership of a backpack containing the pistol and the weight of the shotgun. Second, he challenged the constitutionality of the federal felon-in-possession statute, arguing it exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause authority and violated his Second Amendment rights in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. The district court denied his motion for a new trial, leading to this appeal.
The court addressed the prosecutorial misconduct claim first, applying the four-factor test for plain error. The court determined that the government's remarks were not improper because they were reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence presented at trial. Specifically, the statement that the shotgun was 'big' and 'heavy' was a logical inference from the physical evidence and testimony that the weapon was visible in the backseat. Similarly, the argument that Mackey owned the backpack was supported by testimony that the car owner did not own a backpack and that Mackey was the sole occupant of the vehicle. The court noted that the district court provided curative instructions telling the jury that lawyer statements are not evidence, and the jury is presumed to have followed them. Consequently, the remarks did not prejudicially affect Mackey's substantial rights. Regarding the constitutional challenges, the court applied the prior-panel precedent rule. It held that the Supreme Court's decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi did not abrogate the Eleventh Circuit's binding precedent in United States v. Rozier. The court explained that Rozier interpreted Heller to limit Second Amendment protections to 'law-abiding and qualified individuals,' explicitly excluding felons. The court found that Rahimi merely reiterated that prohibitions on felon possession are 'presumptively lawful' and did not provide the 'clearer instruction' necessary to overturn Rozier. Similarly, the court affirmed that § 922(g)(1) satisfies the Commerce Clause because the firearms had traveled in interstate commerce, a requirement satisfied by the 'minimal nexus' established in United States v. Wright and United States v. Scott.
The conviction stands, and the case is not remanded for a new trial. The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's stance that felon-in-possession statutes remain constitutionally valid under both the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment, despite evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence. It signals that unless the Supreme Court issues a direct ruling specifically abrogating United States v. Rozier, lower courts in the circuit must continue to apply that precedent to reject similar constitutional challenges.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download