United States v. Walker

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUG 16, 2011
No. 10-13838 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20602-JLK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE WALKER,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 16, 2011)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Walker appeals his conviction and sentence of 188 months of
imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(e)(1). Walker challenges the denial of his motion to suppress the firearms
found in his apartment, the constitutionality of section 922(g), and the
reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.
The district court did not err when it denied Walker’s motion to suppress
evidence discovered during a warrantless entry of his apartment. Walker concedes
that Officer Emile Wilson had probable cause to follow Walker in hot pursuit into
his apartment based on exigent circumstances. Walker argues that the exigency
ended at his arrest and the later search of his residence was illegal, but Wilson and
other officers were entitled to search Walker’s home to ensure their safety. See
United States v. Standridge, 810 F.2d 1034, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). “Such a
security sweep is particularly reasonable where . . . [the] officers [were] arresting a
suspect they believe[d] to be armed and dangerous, who [was] not . . . alone and
who in fact physically resist[ed] the arrest.” Id. Officer Wilson was entitled to
seize a duffle bag that had one gun protruding from its opening, see id. at 1038 (“If
the officers spot evidence during a protective sweep, they may seize it.”), and two
other guns concealed inside.
Walker also argues that section 922(g)(1) is “unconstitutional because the
possession of firearms by a convicted felon does not have a substantial effect on
interstate commerce,” but his argument is foreclosed by precedent. In United
2
States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387, 389–90 (11th Cir. 1996), this Court held that
section 922(g)(1) prohibits possession of a firearm “in or affecting commerce,”
and that “jurisdictional element defeats [a] facial challenge” to the provision. Id.
at 390.
Walker’s sentence is reasonable. Walker, an armed career criminal, was
apprehended in possession of a .22LR caliber revolver, a .32 caliber revolver, and
a .410 bore shotgun pistol. Walker had an extensive criminal history that included
convictions for grand theft, burglary, robbery, assault and battery, resisting an
officer with violence, and selling a controlled substance. The district court
reasonably determined that a sentence of 188 months of imprisonment would
provide adequate punishment, deter Walker from future similar crimes, and protect
the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion
by sentencing Walker at the low end of the guideline range and well below the
statutory maximum sentence.
We AFFIRM Walker’s conviction and sentence.
3