United States v. Beasley

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60113
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jonathan Beasley,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:18-CR-267-1

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jonathan Beasley was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A police officer
initially responded to a complaint that Beasley was involved in a domestic
disturbance but later learned that Beasley had been in a car accident at a

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-60113 Document: 00515630431 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2020

No. 20-60113
2
nearby gas station. After smelling burnt marijuana near the disabled vehicle,
the police officer opened the vehicle door and observed a firearm under the
front passenger seat. The district court sentenced Beasley to 60 months of
imprisonment and imposed a three-year term of supervised release.
First, Beasley argues that the district court erred in not granting his
motion to suppress the seized firearm because the search-incident-to-arrest
exception to the warrant requirement does not apply. When reviewing a
district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prevailing party and review factual findings for
clear error and the legality of police conduct de novo. United States v. Pack,
612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.), opinion modified on denial of reh’g, 622 F.3d 383
(5th Cir. 2010). We may affirm the decision on any basis supported by the
record. Id.
Even if we assume, as Beasley argues, that the search of his vehicle
was not justified as a search incident to his arrest, the police officer still had
probable cause to search the car in light of his testimony that he smelled burnt
marijuana as he approached Beasley’s disabled vehicle to investigate the
accident. See United States v. Fields, 456 F.3d 519, 523-24 (5th Cir. 2006);
United States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 686 (5th Cir. 1995). Beasley does not
dispute that there was a burnt marijuana smell coming from his vehicle on the
night of his arrest. Therefore, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the
district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress the firearm. See
Pack, 612 F.3d at 347; Fields, 456 F.3d at 523-24.
Second, Beasley argues that the district court erred in denying his
requested jury instruction that the Government was required to prove that
he had knowledge that he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. He
contends that Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019), requires
not just proof of his knowledge that he possessed a firearm and was a felon at
Case: 20-60113 Document: 00515630431 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2020

No. 20-60113
3
the time of possession, but also proof that he knew that the law prohibited
felons from possessing firearms.
We review the refusal to issue a jury instruction for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Orji-Nwosu, 549 F.3d 1005, 1008 (5th Cir. 2008).
The district court errs in rejecting a proposed instruction only if the
instruction (1) was substantially correct, (2) was not substantially covered in
the charge given to the jury, and (3) concerned an important issue in the trial
so that the failure to give it seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to
present a given defense. United States v. John, 309 F.3d 298, 304 (5th
Cir. 2002).
Beasley provides no jurisprudential support for his argument that
Rehaif requires proof that he knew that the law prohibited his possession of a
firearm. Moreover, when we have addressed Rehaif, we have never extended
the decision beyond requiring that the Government prove “both that the
defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the
relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” Rehaif, 139
S. Ct. at 2200; see, e.g., United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180, 184 (5th
Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Aug. 20, 2020) (No. 20-5489); United
States v. Huntsberry, 956 F.3d 270, 281 (5th Cir. 2020). The instruction
provided by the court complied with the mandate set forth in Rehaif. See
Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2200. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in rejecting Beasley’s special jury instruction. See Orji-Nwosu, 549
F.3d at 1008.
AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-60113 Document: 00515630431 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2020