United States v. Daniel Newell Metts

Case: 14-10802 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10802
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cr-00203-WTM-GRS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL NEWELL METTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 11, 2014)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10802 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Daniel Metts appeals his conviction for possessing six firearms in his vehicle
after he had been convicted of a felony. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The six firearms
were described in Metts’s indictment. Metts challenges the denial of his request
for a special jury verdict to identify the particular firearms that he possessed. The
district court ruled that there was not “a requirement that that charge be given in
this case.” We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to instruct the
jury to identify which of the six firearms Metts had in his vehicle. To convict
Metts for violating section 922(g), the jury had to find that Metts was a convicted
felon who was knowingly in possession of a firearm and that the firearm affected
or traveled in interstate commerce. See United States v. Wright, 392 F.3d 1269,
1273 (11th Cir. 2004). Officers discovered six firearms wrapped inside a sleeping
bag lying in the cargo compartment of Metts’s Isuzu vehicle. Metts’s
“simultaneous possession of several weapons constitute[d] only one offense under
Section 922(g).” United States v. Grinkiewicz, 873 F.2d 253, 255 (11th Cir. 1989);
see also United States v. Bonavia, 927 F.2d 565, 568–69 (11th Cir. 1991). A
special verdict was unnecessary when the jury had to agree that Metts possessed
any one of the six firearms.
Metts argues, for the first time, that the jury needed to identify the specific
firearms to substantiate its finding that he had constructively possessed the
2
Case: 14-10802 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 3 of 3
firearms, but we disagree. The firearms were discovered together, which
eliminated the possibility that Metts possessed only some of the six firearms. And
Metts did not submit any evidence to suggest that someone else exercised authority
over his vehicle. See Wright, 392 F.3d at 1273. Officers found the firearms inside
an Isuzu vehicle that Metts gave the officers permission to search, and a clerk in
the Bryan County licensing office testified that Metts owned the Isuzu vehicle.
Metts testified that he had “never seen the guns,” but he did not testify that anyone
else used his vehicle. Metts suggests that he did not exercise exclusive authority
over the vehicle based on testimony that there were “other persons on the scene,”
but that testimony does not support Metts’s argument. An officer testified on
cross-examination that “some people approached” Metts’s property during the
search and that those people were asked “to step away until [the officers] were
done conducting [their] business.” The officer’s testimony does not suggest that
other people exercised control over Metts’s vehicle.
We AFFIRM Metts’s conviction.
3