United States v. Gerard Beasley

── United States v. Gerard Beasley ── Case No.: 24-12004 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 07, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-12004 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 1 of 14 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12004 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GERARD ERIC BEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:23-cr-00140-KKM-AAS-1 ____________________ Before LAGOA, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Gerard Eric Beasley appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, Beasley first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence USCA11 Case: 24-12004 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 2 of 14 2 Opinion of the Court 24-12004 of his second confession because that confession was involuntary, and the Miranda 1 warning he received before that second confes- sion did not cleanse the taint from his first involuntary confession, which the court had suppressed. Second, Beasley argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amend- ment both facially and as applied to him. I. We review the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence under a mixed standard, reviewing the district court’s factfinding for clear error and the district court’s application of the law to the facts de novo. United States v. Lewis, 674 F.3d 1298, 1302- 03 (11th Cir. 2012). We grant substantial deference to both the ex- plicit and implicit credibility determinations of the district court acting as factfinder, construing all facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. Id. at 1303. We must accept the version of events adopted by the district court “unless it is contrary to the laws of nature, or is so inconsistent or improbable on its face that no reasonable factfinder could accept it.” United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted). We review de novo whether a statement was voluntary, giv- ing deference to the district court’s factual findings. United States v. Lall, 607 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2010). The government must establish voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). USCA11 Case: 24-12004 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 3 of 14 24-12004 Opinion of the Court 3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), protects a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by requiring that law enforcement officers advise the “person subject to custodial inter- rogation of certain rights and to respect the person’s invocation of those rights.” United States v. Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1318 (11th Cir. 2010). The admission of evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is subject to harmless-error analysis. Lall, 607