Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01367/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01367-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Frank San Filippo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.• 

( 

.' ✓ 

.-

.•· ... 

.... , 

r 

UNITED SfATES COURT OF APPEALS 

\l'ENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

' -~ · 

•sf' •• : 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

Uoited S!ates 0.>':m of Appeals 

f enth Circuit 

SEP 12 1990 

.&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

..... v ·. No. 89-1367 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-359) 

(D. Colo.) 

/ \. 

~THONY FRANK SAN FILIPPO, 

Defendant-Appellant . 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before TACHA, BARRETT, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

This appeal is from defendant Anthony Frank San Filippo's 

conviction of possession of multiple firearms as a felon following 

a jury trial. San Filippo alleges on appeal that the affidavit 

for the search warrant issued in this case lacked sufficient 

probable cause to support issuance of the warrant and that 

therefore the evidence seized during the search pursuant to the 

warrant should have been suppressed. San Filippo further alleges 

that there was no justification for issuance of a no-knock warrant 

and that there was insufficient evidence to prove constructive 

possession of the weapons. Finally, defendant appeals on the 

grounds that the district court erred in assessing one point for 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1367 Document: 010110042156 Date Filed: 09/12/1990 Page: 1 
r 

his stolen weapon in calculating the sentence under the Sentencing 

Guidelines. We affirm. 

In determining whether the warrant was supported by probable 

cause, we look to the totality of the circumstances at the time 

the affidavit was sworn and the warrant was issued. Illinois Y...!. 

Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983). We grant a judicial officer's 

determination that probable cause exists great deference. See 

United States Y...!. Shomo, 786 F.2d 981, 983 (10th Cir. 1986). The 

district court found that the totality of the circumstances in 

this case provided sufficient probable cause to support the 

warrant. We agree. Although the information provided by the 

confidential informant may have been stale, that information was 

corroborated by subsequent observation of the defendant. The 

affidavit detailed three separate drug transactions involving San 

Filippo. Further, surveillance had connected the premises at 

North Tower with the defendant. Under the circumstances of this 

case there was sufficient probable cause to support the warrant. 

San Filippo also challenges the issuance of a "no knock" 

warrant. In this case a state search warrant was executed by 

state officers and approved by a state judge under the appropriate 

authority of the statutes of Colorado. See People Y...!. Lujan, 484 

P.2d 1238, 1241 (Colo. 1971); Colo. Rev. Stat.§ 16-3-304(e)(b). 

Thus, this warrant is not directly regulated by the provisions of 

18 U.S.C. § 3109, which applies only to the execution of federal 

warrants by federal officers. United States Y...!. Stewart, 867 F.2d 

581 (10th Cir. 1989), is thus distinguishable because it involved 

a search under a federal warrant without any notification to a 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1367 Document: 010110042156 Date Filed: 09/12/1990 Page: 2 
:... 

magistrate or judge that a no knock entry was contemplated. The 

probability of the existence of firearms cited in the affidavit 

supported the state judge's determination to issue a no-knock 

unannounced entry warrant. Thus, we find no basis for overturning 

the search warrant issued in this case. The use of a no knock 

warrant was not unreasonable under the fourth amendment. We 

therefore hold that the district court did not err in refusing to 

suppress the evidence from the search. 

San Filippo's third contention is that the record contains 

insufficient evidence to support his possession of the firearms. 

We disagree. The record contains sufficient evidence from which 

the jury could properly conclude that this defendant 

constructively possessed the weapons that were the subject of the 

indictment. The weapons were found in San Filippo's residence and 

there was testimony that San Filippo had admitted purchasing the 

weapons, testimony which the jury could have chosen to believe 

rather than San Filippo's subsequent explanation. The possession 

charges are supported by substantial evidence. 

Finally, San Filippo contends that Guidelines section 

2K2.2{d){l) requires the government to prove that he "knew" the 

weapons were stolen. We disagree. The trial court properly 

applied§ 2K2.2(d)(l), which requires the increase of defendant's 

sentence by one level where the evidence shows that the firearm 

was stolen. This section of the Sentencing Guidelines does not 

require the government to show that defendant had any knowledge 

that the weapon was stolen or that the defendant was involved in 

the weapon's theft. See United States Y...!.. Williams, 879 F.2d 454, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1367 Document: 010110042156 Date Filed: 09/12/1990 Page: 3 
' 

.,· 

457 (8th Cir. 1989). The section applies automatically when a 

weapon is stolen. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1367 Document: 010110042156 Date Filed: 09/12/1990 Page: 4