USA v. Daniel Newell Metts, No. 14-10802 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-10802 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-10802 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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. ยง 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
