United States v. Steven Roseboro

── United States v. Steven Roseboro ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-13264 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 1 of 18 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13264 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus STEVEN TODD ROSEBORO, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-00182-RAH-SMD-1 ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Courtney Roseboro appeals his convictions for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and committing an offense while on release, in USCA11 Case: 24-13264 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 2 of 18 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13264 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3147. On appeal, Roseboro argues that: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion challenging the com- position of the jury venire as violating either the fair cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment or the principles of the Jury Selection and Service Act (“JSSA”); (2) the court erred by conclud- ing that he failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination from the government’s use of its peremptory strikes; (3) the evi- dence at his trial was insufficient to support his § 922(g)(1) convic- tion; and (4) § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in violation of the Sec- ond Amendment. After thorough review, we affirm. I. We review de novo constitutional challenges to the jury se- lection process. United States v. Grisham, 63 F.3d 1074, 1077 (11th Cir. 1995). We review the denial of a challenge under Batson v. Ken- tucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), for clear error. United States v. Robert- son, 736 F.3d 1317, 1324 (11th Cir. 2013). However, we review er- rors of law in the application of Batson de novo. United States v. Allen-Brown, 243 F.3d 1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001). We also review de novo whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a convic- tion. United States v. Davis, 854 F.3d 1276, 1292 (11th Cir. 2017). Finally, we review de novo challenges to the constitutional- ity of a statute. United States v. Dubois (Dubois II), 139 F.4th 887, 890 (11th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, (U.S. Jan. 20, 2026) (No. 25-6281). But when a constitutional claim is raised for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. United States v. Hughes, 840 F.3d 1368, 1385 (11th Cir. 2016). To establish plain error, the defendant must USCA11 Case: 24-13264 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 3 of 18 24-13264 Opinion of the Court 3 show (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected his substan- tial rights. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007). If the defendant satisfies these conditions, we may exercise our discretion to recognize the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.