United States v. Jesse Charles Reverio

Case: 13-10312 Date Filed: 01/09/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10312
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20461-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESSE CHARLES REVERIO,
a.k.a. Andreas Brown,
a.k.a. Andres Brown,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 9, 2014)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-10312 Date Filed: 01/09/2014 Page: 2 of 4
Jesse Reverio, who conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss
his indictment and his objection to the enhancement of his sentence under the
Armed Career Criminal Act. Reverio challenges his conviction and sentence on
the grounds that section 922(g)(1) and the Armed Career Criminal Act are
unconstitutional. We affirm.
We review de novo the constitutionality of a statute. United States v.
Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir. 2011).
Reverio challenges the constitutionality of section 922(g)(1) on four
grounds, all of which fail. Reverio argues that section 922(g)(1) interferes with his
fundamental right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but his argument is
foreclosed by our holding in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir.
2010), “that statutes disqualifying felons from possessing a firearm under any and
all circumstances do not offend the Second Amendment,” id. at 771 (discussing the
decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128
S. Ct. 2783 (2008)). Reverio also makes the conclusory argument, for the first
time, that section 922(g)(1) “violate[s] the Equal Protection and Substantive Due
Process clauses of the Fifth Amendment unless the government can establish that
the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest,”
but Reverio fails to establish any plain error with respect to his conviction because
2
Case: 13-10312 Date Filed: 01/09/2014 Page: 3 of 4
he cites no precedent in support of his argument. See United States v. Lejarde–
Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003). Reverio “maintains that . . . . section
922(g)(1) . . . violates the Tenth Amendment” by infringing on a police power
reserved for the States and that Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce
Clause by enacting section 922(g)(1), but Reverio concedes that his arguments are
foreclosed by our precedents. See Jordan, 635 F.3d at 1189; United States v. Scott,
263 F.3d 1270, 1273 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Dupree, 258 F.3d 1258,
1259–60 (11th Cir. 2001); Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276, 1277 (11th Cir. 1998);
United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387, 389–90 (11th Cir. 1996). Section
922(g)(1) is also constitutional as applied to Reverio, who admitted in his factual
stipulation that the firearm he possessed was “manufactured outside the State of
Florida and therefore traveled in interstate and/or foreign commerce.” See Jordan,
635 F.3d at 1189; Scott, 263 F.3d at 1274.
Reverio’s arguments about the Armed Career Criminal Act also fail.
Reverio argues that the Act violates the Second Amendment, but convicted felons
do not possess the same right to gun ownership as do law-abiding citizens. See
Heller, 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S. Ct. at 2816–17 (“the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited” and “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons”).
Reverio argues that the Act is contrary to the “principle[] codified” in the
3
Case: 13-10312 Date Filed: 01/09/2014 Page: 4 of 4
Sentencing Guidelines that offenders can rehabilitate and should not have counted
against them any prior sentence that is more than 10 years old, see U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.2(e)(2), but Congress decided to treat armed career offenders differently.
Reverio also argues that his 15-year sentence is overly harsh because he refrained
from criminal activity for about a decade before possessing a firearm, but the Act
is intended to punish Reverio for his recidivism, not “the motive or purpose of [his]
current possession of firearms,” United States v. Reynolds, 215 F.3d 1210, 1214
(11th Cir. 2000).
We AFFIRM Reverio’s conviction and sentence.
4