UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 23-1667 │ v. │ │ DUANE GARY UNDERWOOD, II, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:19-cr-00181-4—Robert J. Jonker, District Judge.

Argued: December 12, 2024

Decided and Filed: February 26, 2025

Before: GRIFFIN, STRANCH, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Mary Chartier, CHARTIER & NYAMFUKUDZA, P.L.C., Okemos, Michigan, for Appellant. Timothy P. VerHey, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mary Chartier, CHARTIER & NYAMFUKUDZA, P.L.C., Okemos, Michigan, for Appellant. Timothy P. VerHey, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Duane Gary Underwood, II appeals his criminal conviction for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, No. 23-1667 United States v. Underwood Page 2

possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of methamphetamine, possession of a stolen firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Underwood raises ten issues on appeal: (1) whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) is unconstitutional, (2) whether the officers who detained Underwood lacked reasonable suspicion to do so, (3) whether Underwood was unreasonably searched, (4) whether a search warrant for Underwood’s phone was invalid, (5) whether the trial court improperly admitted a set of photos and text messages under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), (6) whether the court erred in disallowing inquiry into potential Rule 404(b) evidence during voir dire, (7) whether the evidence was insufficient to support Underwood’s convictions, (8) whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing portions of grand jury testimony to be read into the record pursuant to Rule 803(5), (9) whether the jury instructions were improper, and (10) whether Underwood’s conviction should be overturned because the Government attorney was unlicensed. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

In July 2019, Marcus VanPelt stole his girlfriend’s pink 9mm handgun. She told VanPelt’s stepfather, William Chatman, that she believed VanPelt had taken the gun. Shortly thereafter, Chatman, with whom VanPelt lived, saw a pink gun in the home and became concerned about the safety of his household. He saw VanPelt outside the house on the 100 block of East Maple Street, engaging in what looked like a gun sale with individuals in a Jeep Compass. He reported all of this to the police. The police were already aware that VanPelt had gang affiliations.

Four officers of the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety reported to the 100 block of East Maple Street, where they observed a Jeep C