Larry Neel, a convicted felon with prior judgments for manufacturing and trafficking methamphetamine, was charged with possessing firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In December 2023, police executed an arrest warrant at Neel's home, where they observed two pump-action shotguns in plain view. After arresting Neel, officers conducted a protective sweep, secured the shotguns, and obtained a search warrant a few hours later, discovering additional firearms and ammunition. Neel moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the protective sweep violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, ruling that even if the sweep was improper, the subsequent warrant was supported by probable cause derived from the plain view observations. Neel pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 108 months. On appeal, he raised new constitutional arguments for the first time, challenging the district court's questioning of witnesses and asserting that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to him.
The Eleventh Circuit applied the plain error standard because Neel failed to preserve his claims in the district court. First, regarding the due process challenge to the district court's questioning, the court found no plain error. The opinion cites United States v. Caldwell, establishing that trial judges have the discretion to question witnesses to clarify facts or elicit information not yet adduced. The district court asked Investigator Howell to clarify whether his plain view observations prompted the search warrant application and questioned Lieutenant Jackson about the timing of the arrest. The court noted that Neel's attorney did not object to these questions, did not cross-examine Jackson on the timing discrepancy, and admitted she did not know if there was case law supporting her argument. The appellate court concluded the judge maintained neutrality and did not act as an advocate. Second, the court addressed Neel's Second Amendment challenge. Citing United States v. Dubois, a 2025 Eleventh Circuit decision, the court held that binding precedent squarely forecloses as-applied challenges to § 922(g)(1) by defendants with prior controlled substance convictions. The court stated it is bound by that prior panel precedent.
Neel's conviction stands, and he remains subject to his 108-month sentence. The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's strict adherence to the plain error standard for unpreserved constitutional claims and confirms that the court will not revisit the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute for individuals with prior drug convictions. The ruling also clarifies that district judges retain broad discretion to question witnesses to clarify factual disputes, provided they do not abandon judicial neutrality.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download