United States v. Ashley

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 28, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30636
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADRIAN T. ASHLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CR-50101-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Adrian Ashley appeals from his jury trial conviction for
possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). Ashley argues that the district court erred in
issuing a jury instruction on deliberate ignorance.
A deliberate ignorance instruction will be upheld so long
as sufficient evidence supports its inclusion. United States
v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d 946, 951 (5th Cir. 1990). A two-part

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-30636
-2-
test is conducted for reviewing whether the district court’s
deliberate ignorance instruction was proper. First, the evidence
at trial must raise the inference that the defendant was
subjectively aware of a high probability of the existence of
the illegal conduct. Id. Second, the evidence must raise the
inference that the defendant purposely contrived to avoid
learning of the illegal conduct. Id. Where substantial evidence
of actual knowledge exists, any error in giving the deliberate
ignorance instruction is harmless. United States v. Threadgill,
172 F.3d 357, 369 (5th Cir. 1999).
The testimony introduced at trial raised the inferences
necessary to support the district court’s decision to instruct
the jury on deliberate ignorance. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d at
951. In any event, any error was harmless because there was
substantial evidence of actual knowledge. See Threadgill, 172
F.3d at 369. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --