United States v. Harry Duncan

── United States v. Harry Duncan ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: June 10, 2026 Category: General U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 24-2729 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HARRY E. DUNCAN, Appellant _____________________________ Appeal from the U.S. District Court, W.D. Pa. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand, No. 2:22-cr-00317-001 Before: PORTER, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and BOVE, Circuit Judges Submitted: April 8, 2026; Filed: June 10, 2026 _____________________________ NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judge. Harry Duncan appeals his convictions of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and fentanyl under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and aiding and abetting the falsification of a firearms purchase form under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), (2). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm Duncan’s convictions. * This is not an opinion of the full Court and, under 3d Cir. IOP 5.7, is not binding precedent.  I. BACKGROUND1 In September 2022, the Allegheny County Police Department began investigating Duncan for suspected drug trafficking, using an unidentified confidential informant (the “CI”) to orchestrate controlled purchases. Several of these controlled purchases, which detectives witnessed, occurred at Duncan’s home, located at 1622 Loretta Drive, and one involved Duncan’s car. One such purchase occurred on November 7, 2022. On that date, three detectives, including Detective Matthew Bloom, witnessed the CI buy a brick of fentanyl from Duncan (the “Controlled Purchase”). Relying substantially on the controlled purchases, Detective Bloom filed an affidavit of probable cause and obtained a warrant to search Duncan’s home. During the search of 1622 Loretta Drive, Detective Bloom asked Duncan numerous questions, which he ignored. About 15 minutes later, but before Duncan received a Miranda2 warning, Duncan told Detective Carter Cecotti that only he lived at 1622 Loretta Drive and that everything inside belonged to him. Law enforcement found multiple cell phones, a check made out to Duncan, his driver’s license inside a wallet, and keys to a car parked in the garage. That car was registered to Duncan, its screen displayed “a welcome for . . . Harry Duncan,” and its license plate matched the car used during the Controlled 1 Duncan was convicted after a jury trial so “we must defer to the jury’s verdict and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” United States v. Kolodesh, 787 F.3d 224, 229 n.1 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758, 763 n.4 (3d Cir. 2000)). 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 Purchase. Appendix (hereinafter “App. ___”) 1259. Law enforcement also recovered fentanyl, cocaine, firearms, ammunition, stamp bags, and digital scales. So they arrested Duncan and charged him with possession with intent to distribute quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).3 Duncan proceeded to trial. The District Court made five rulings relevant to this appeal: four rejected Duncan’s efforts to exclude certain evidence, and one rejected Duncan’s efforts to dismiss the felon- in-possession charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Thereafter, the jury convicted Duncan on all counts, and the District Court sentenced him to 100 months’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.