district court first off the search warrant was defective in the in the fact that it lacked particularity it indicated the wrong address it to indicated that the search was for e three sixty one address rather than the three hundred thirty five sloan address the numbers in fact were were identifiable in the outside of the building but didn't describe in some detail the nature of the building and my understand was that was the only building on the street or something like that that's correct it did your honor there was a photograph a grainy photograph that was included in the search warrant there are actually two residential buildings that the search warrant identified one as an government missed the fact that this was a multiple dwelling building in that the roof or separate apartments in the building and that the one of those the one with the home the one one of those apartment three is the one the mr crumpton resided and pretty hard thing to know about well your honor he did have addresses that had apartment numbers on the outside of the building there were four rural mailboxes in for a separate address for the hole in the wall section there was a part hundred three was the one in the back yes that's that's that's where he was found that's where mr compton was found around and then apartment for my right is the one that you got to the in the hole in the law and no your apartment three was the one that was in the back the only way that you get the main part of the building was there was this hole in the wall that the you described as you could squeeze through it to get to the front of the the other dwelling parts and and the front of the building apartments one two were where the other individuals also led the raid on the home about the reality that mr compton had a lot of the stuff in a lot of different ones of these apartments we'll call them there was in again the record was kind of  mixed in terms of what he had where it sounds like he slept in at least one place he slept in the back apartment i thought on the get go and some other he had a hole in the wall that he could have access to the other part of the building with the other apartments and the stuff  that apartment i'm sorry i didn't get to that apartment where the speakers and computers stuff were located well i guess you could either squeeze through the wall or you could go outside into the other interns to the apartment building because there were several entrances as well into the into the drawling so there were some items that he owned there but in any event once the search was undertaken it should have been rather obvious to the the team there who  enter the building that there were several dueling units as well as the fact that there were six other people in the building besides mr crumpton which would suggest that there are other living quarters for sure this was in the morning there are therefore when you come for apartment yes around in compton had his stuff and two of them i think yes that would be a fair point those the two though that the police searched they searched the entire building but i mean aren't those the two where they found incriminating evidence it's i guess those are troubling with why do we care about the other two if this if this the part of the search that's hurtful to him of the places where he was either living or had his own personal items there they were doing they would hypothetically if it had been like in a hotel where there's a doorway connecting two rooms but sometimes it's locked in other times it's available would a search that specifies one unit allow if the doors are open allow the officers to go into the other my hypothetical hotel room situation i would think not your honor specifically if there are doesn't need a separate units by indicated by separate addresses separate buildings for electrical meters for mail boxes for i viewed the tape of the attack team moving in and they came off their vehicles with all the heavy military equipment  and almost knocked over the four mailboxes that were in front of the house now that would certainly be something with the mailbox on the front of the house though pretty much the only indication that there might be four separate units units in there no a door for anybody to walk in and have access to in a regular basis this was just some kind of a you know rough hole chop in the wall so judge tarnow nevertheless up held the validity will the issue of the four subdivided permits was never written in a motion it was brought up by mr crump and it won't be hearings but the judge it was never develops to the point where the judge made a ruling on it search only of the apartment that was identified in quotes which really wasn't in the search warrants what and what is your view as to what would have been a legitimate scope of the search probably the back apartment where m resided that's the only apartment the he basic reside in full time basis and the place where he has important stuff you're his mother lived in the in the front apartment i guess he could leave things with his mother she came and she was the only person actually testified about the configuration of the building in the apartments itself at trial he brought his mother in and she said you know i work at night and i come in here about mid afternoon and i stay in the front apartment and i sleep there at night and ernest crutch government once the agents got into the apartment saw what was there they should've stopped and gone back and got a warrant for the whole premises or tried to narrow it down to what they were authorized to search which was the apartment number three where crumpton resided and that would be our position or that's three at the house the police testified about the fact that they always do this is a general course of the there are a procedure but they couldn't specify if there they recall doing that at all in this case and again that that goes to end of the evidence made closing arguments basically said after the defense argument which indicated that the government basically suggested the governor could have brought all these other witnesses in the other six people in the house who could have testified as to the ownership of these bullets but didn't do so so on the rebuttal argument the government came in and basically said well you know we didn't hear this from anybody why didn't mr smith the defendant's mother come and testify to this at another hearing while she was never present at another hearing or that there was any topic related to this and also why did mr crumpton mention this before so that certainly shifted the burden to the defense and then finally the u s so far doesn't good morning i mean please the court showing probably finite states i'd like to focus first on the multi unit dwelling argument and much of what i heard counsel say to the court is just not in the record and that's because this motion was never before the court and the court never considered it i'd like to just recap briefly the procedural posture mr compton filed a motion to suppress in january that had two arguments one particular already as to the description which we've already addressed with the the photograph and then the  cause because of the confidential informant at the hearing mr crump and not his attorney mr crumpton pro se says i want to argue this is a multi unit dwelling the district court says wait a minute that's not before me why don't we adjourn this you when you're t figure out what we're going to argue and then come back and see me in a month they do mr clinton does not raise this this issue was never presented to the court at any point that's why the court's not rule on it and there are no facts to support much of what counsel is saying references apartment numbers there were nine photographs present the a t f agent he said i don't recognize this one thousand it's not fairly and accurately depict the apartment or the residence on the day of the search or when i saw it th not offer that photograph the mother testifies she could not authentic at the photograph there is no evidence in this record to support their apartment numbers yes if you watch the video of the search warrant there were multiple  mailboxes these were not directly in front of the residence they were let's say ten feet beside it we have no facts to support if those were all linked to that residence they very well could have been a part of mailboxes for the other side of the street because you know men don't just go back and forth to bounce and when they're delivering the mail often they're all on the same side of the street we don't know because those facts are not in there in the record simply put it cannot be plain error for a district court not to sue a sponte suppress evidence for an issue that's not raised before him and that's what we have here there's a reference to multiple utility meters there is there is one photograph i will concede there's a photograph in the record that suggests that there  is a utility meter and a bunch of wires hanging off of it and perhaps another one there whether those are both power meters whether those are power and gas it is entirely unclear but again no facts to make any sort of finding in order to make a ruling of this nature there's no testimony there is no testimony and basically what we have or some photographs that could be there are multiple inferences that could be drawn but the district court did not draw any because the district court was never presented this issue and in fact the defendant when given an opportunity to go back and brief this issue and put in facts declined to do so and that's because he was fixated on this notion that there were multiple search warrants and i'm sure that multiple search warrants yes your honor if you read through what is drawn most of the issues here if you read through all the suppression issues mr crumpton persistently believed that there was a different search warrant shown to him on the data search that it was a tether violation the warrant was for a tether violation for another individual that was their brand in the bar and that's why he felt he wanted to fire the first lawyer and if you look at the request to adjourn the trial on the first day of trial as well as his request to fire his lawyer on the third day of trial it all stem from this persistent belief that he received a different copy of the warrant in discovery then when he was shown on the day of the search one itself that there were essentially two warrants the one that you had before you that i cited that she had the photograph to judge sutton referenced is the one he received  discovery but he kept saying that's not the one i was shown despite the fact that the audio recording where the agent talked about it with him described very blunt that we're talking about today with the photograph and the requests to search drugs this is a basic question which i apologize for not knowing but in the normal case part but if it's do you leave a copy of the search warrant with the defendant with the person who owns the property or whoever's there well it depends you're on a route forty one  requires you to either turn a copy over to the person or leave a copy behind in this case the defendant was taken into custody so you're not going to leave a copy with him because whatever detention facility take it to him is going to have paperwork at least initially so you would like to copy behind in the in the stuff strewn everywhere typically that would be left in a situation where they could find a kitchen table or something of that effect it's unclear where that was here because there was no evidence put forth on the part of the defendant who is the one that bears the burden of showing that it was not that there was it was not satisfied and there was prejudice that was not done here and certainly even if there was a rule forty went by the action which i certainly did not conceive that there was it's a ministerial violation it's not something that results in suppression so here the officer said he is normal practice was to leave it behind and he thought that he did that here is that right am i correct that's the substance of it yes your honor and the district court found that essentially that was sufficient because there was nothing to rebut that there were six people in the inside the building that were held by the police for a little bit of time correct were all of them arrested or just a couple and what happened to the others i actually don't know the answer that you're on  don't my impression is or my understanding is that not all of them were arrested but i'd be speculating as to the rest because there was the girlfriend and the mother were there actually actually the mother was not there she arrived later in the day because the warrant as most wore on top and they happen early in the morning in order to try to prevent some sort of incident so that warren happened early in the morning the mother gets off work she came over i think she said somewhere around twelve or one at that point they're wrapping up because there was a lot to search through here just because of the way he kept something so a copy could have been given to her she said that she did not receive a copy she testified to that effect so while it could have been based on in this court i mean she certainly didn't strike it does did not come across very credible based on her testimony at trial but she said that she did not receive one that does not mean that one was not left behind  fact she said i didn't get into her to have today right left i would also note that despite counsel's assertion the mother did not sleep there the mother did not live there in fact on page five twenty three of the record the mother stated very clearly that she slept in a different house and a different part of town on joy road there were no other beds in this house for people to sleep there was a mattress i will admit there was a mattress in the front but there were no the beds other than one in which the defendant and his girlfriend were found i would also note that the defendant had keys for the perhaps you are i would note that the supreme court case that came out last month certainly suggests that the exact same issue not as far as the suppression but that it cannot be plain error for a court not to rule on something never presented to it but again because we have no facts here  that simply cannot support such a such a finding and also just based on the facts that the police in searching or in conducting their initial surveillance there was nothing on the outside to indicate this was a multi unit well  turning a briefly just to the to the argument of prosecutor misconduct in closing the defense argued extensively how the government had the ability to bring all these witnesses witnesses that would prove who the true owner of these bullets were keep in mind that the defense theme throughout was were conceding that he that you could find that the drugs belong or that mr compton possessed the drugs we're only going to argue about the bullets that was their theme at trial it was said both in the opening and the close the defendant basically said in closing we could they could have brought all these other witnesses here but they didn't and why because that would undercut the testimony they want to present to you and he focused extensively on the mother  mother who i think a fair reading would be that she perjured herself but a mother that insisted she was very persistent in saying that she had testified about the bullets in the earlier evidence you're hearing this summer  prosecutor handed her a transcript and said why don't you look through it you can you know point me to where you testified about and the mother read through the tripp transcript and said well i did it's not in here but i know i talked about it essentially implying that the court reporter must have missed it  had never seen one charged with perjury in all these years but it also is possible that someone could think that they had testified about something certainly or and and be presented with a transcript and say well i know that i testified you know must be the reporter didn't get it or a lot of people believe in conspiracies absolutely oh so and so perhaps in any event she she does testify at trial that she that the ammunition was not her son's right that's correct your honor and she says the true owners were the girlfriend and another individual i think his name is ernest crutchfield and so the defense argument in closing is look we know who the owners are they didn't call mr crutchfield they didn't call ms tolley and why because that would undercut their argument here that would undercut their theme ok and what's the government's evidence that that it was the defendant's ammunition  government's evidence at this point was only the second statement prior to trial it was both of them but at this point it's the second statement statement where he said else that is that is the book of it and certainly the the ammunition is beside the tank where his snake and g are there certainly his his possessions are there are the bulk of the front as well the d j equipment there are other digital scales and things but the so the ammunition is near his other possessions yes yes that's correct i mean as i recall from the transcript is right beside the tank where the snake was being held so the defendant is essentially saying the mother could have the mother told you the only one is telling you who owns these bullets and so the government the prosecutor in rebuttal says essentially pointing to things to challenge her credibility so that the jury can decide for itself whether or not her testimony as to the true owner of the bullets was credible that's the point where she says why if this is the case why do we hear about it before this is not if but but the prosecutor says two things that are troubling to me one is defendant didn't say you know query whether that his right to remain silent and the other thing is do you think that the government really wants to charge somebody in this here and i think that it's important break those down i think the first one would be in reference to the defendant in his statements i think that would be the inference to be drawn there the defendant had already given statements that the jury had heard not just not just heard about but actually heard through the audio recordings and in the for in the second statement the more fulsome one the defendant had said that there were some bullets flying around and head said actually that he had found them and left them there in case someone needed i'm not quite colorful language that's in the brief i think a fair reading of what she was saying is that she was mentioning that not his obligation or his right to stay silent and somehow shifting the burden that he had to present evidence at trial to rebut that as for the second portion of your honor's question whether or not the government wants to prosecute someone that's innocent that is arguably improper but certainly it's isolated and would not rise to the level of flagrant c and i think the best evidence of this is the fact that the defendant did not object at all to anything that was said here the the defendant did not object and immediately after the rebuttal the district court gave it to a typical destruction that everything the art of the attorney said is should not be considered evidence and it's just argument only focus your ruling or your to your verdict on the evidence before you and in fact the judge said this both before argument and afterward if this was so flagrant this one isolated comment if this was so flagrant a defense attorney would have said so and would have objected there is nothing here and certainly referencing back to your question judge sutton if the district court who was not shy was so concerned about whether or not it's flagrant he too would have jumped in neither did and for that reason the rulings that the district court did make as well as the one that it did not make because the issue was not  for it do not warrant a suppression of any evidence found and the prosecutor did not commit process for misconduct and for those reasons the verdict should stand thank you thank you  as far as the statement by the prosecuting attorney at the time it clearly went to the defendant's right to remain silent and shifting the burden to him to bring forth evidence of the apparently an obligation  only to bring forth at the trial but to the authorities which was totally in front of or and finally this was a lawyer the last statement that the u s attorney made prior to the jury going into deliberate you know do you really think we want to charge somebody who's innocent