Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02091/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02091-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karen Cox Khabeer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

 No. 04-2046

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

* 

Samuel Khabeer, Sr., *

*

 Appellant. *

___________ Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

 No. 04-2091 Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Karen Cox Khabeer, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2005

Filed: December 21, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 04-2091 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2005 Entry ID: 1988251
-2-

PER CURIAM.

In a previous opinion, United States v. Khabeer, 410 F.3d 477 (8th Cir. 2005),

we remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of making findings

of fact as to whether the decision of police officers to seek a search warrant for the

residence of the appellants, Samuel Khabeer, Sr., and Karen Cox Khabeer, was

prompted by what Officer Scott Miller had observed during his initial entry into the

residence without a warrant. See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1987).

We retained jurisdiction to consider the case further after receiving additional findings

from the district court. The district court, on remand, found that “the affidavit and

warrant were not bottomed upon (even in part) any of Officer Miller’s observations.”

(Order of Sept. 14, 2005). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district

court’s finding that the decision to seek the warrant was not prompted by Miller’s

observations is consistent with the testimony of both Officer Miller and the affiant,

Detective Cole Dearing, and the district court’s determination to credit that testimony

is not clearly erroneous. Because the affidavit did not make reference to Officer

Miller’s observations, yet included probable cause for the search based on information

from other sources, the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant is admissible under

the independent source doctrine despite Miller’s entry. Murray, 487 U.S. at 542.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly denied the appellants’

motion to suppress.

The Khabeers also argue that the cases should be remanded for resentencing,

because the district court imposed sentence under the mandatory sentencing guidelines

based on facts that were found by the court at sentencing. There was no objection at

sentencing based on the Sixth Amendment or the use of mandatory guidelines, so we

review the sentences under the plain error standard. See United States v. Pirani, 406

F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Having reviewed the record as a whole, we

note that the district court did not even exercise its discretion under the thenmandatory guidelines to sentence either defendant at the bottom of the applicable

Appellate Case: 04-2091 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2005 Entry ID: 1988251
-3-

guideline range, and we conclude that the Khabeers have not established a reasonable

probability that the district court would have imposed a more favorable sentence under

the advisory guideline scheme announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). Consequently, they are not entitled to relief under Pirani, 406 F.3d at 551,

and the judgments of the district court are affirmed.

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2091 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/21/2005 Entry ID: 1988251