Full text
United States v. Christopher Omar Campbell
Case: 17-14043 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 17-14043 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cr-00299-JA-TBS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, versus
CHRISTOPHER OMAR CAMPBELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________
(July 17, 2018) Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-14043 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Christopher Omar Campbell appeals from the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. Campbell contends the district court erred because the evidence was insufficient to conclude he violated the terms of his supervised release by carrying a concealed firearm in violation of Florida law. See Fla. Stat. § 790.01(2). After review,1 we affirm.
Campbell acknowledges the evidence establishes both that he possessed a handgun and that he hid the handgun in the wheel well of a nearby car, after he was confronted by a police officer. He asserts, however, that because he walked away from the vehicle after concealing the handgun in the wheel well, he was no longer “in close proximity to it” at the time he was arrested. Thus, the Government could not establish the concealed firearm was “on or about [his] person” at the time of his arrest. See Bailey v. State, 442 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (“A firearm is on or about one’s person if it is in close proximity to him within his easy reach.”).
When Campbell concealed the handgun in the wheel well, it was undeniably in close proximity to him. Thus, the district court reasonably inferred he was carrying a concealed firearm at that point in time. See State v. Marsh, 138 So. 3d 1087, 1090–91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“By placing the firearm in the wheel well of
1 “We generally review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Cunningham, 607 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010). We must accept a district court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318 (11th Cir. 1993).
Case: 17-14043 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 3 of 3 the vehicle next to which Defendant was seen ‘crouching’ and/or ‘hiding,’ one may certainly surmise (by an exercise of ‘common sense’) that such placement of the firearm was an attempt to conceal the weapon from the ordinary sight of another person within the meaning of the statute . . . .”). Whether Campbell walked away from the weapon moments before he was arrested does not negate his prior possession of the concealed firearm under the meaning of the statute. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient for the district court to conclude Campbell possessed a concealed firearm in violation of Florida law.