2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-17-2009 

# U SA v . C annon P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2000

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . C annon" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 811. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/8111 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 2000 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ODDE L L QUARN C ANNON , A ppel l ant A p p e a l f ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a

N o. 06- cr - 00258 ( D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Ti m othyJ . Savage) Be f o r e : M c KE E , HAR DI M AN a n d VAN AN T WER P E N C i rcui tJud ges. Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 11, 2009 ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t17, 2009)

OP I NI ON M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge F o llo w in g a ju rytrial, O d d e ll Q u a rn C a n n o n w a s c o n v icte d o f o n e c o u n t o f

ill e g a l pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) and 924( e) , and one c ountof pos s es s i on of bodyarm orbya per s on convi ct ed of a vi ol ent fel ony , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 931. H e appe al s both convi ct i ons as w el l as the sen tenc e tha t w as im p o sed fo r th o se c ri m es. F o r th e re aso n s tha t fo ll o w , w e w il l aff irm2

the j udgm entof convi ct i ons , butr emand forr es ent enci ng on C ountT w o of the in d ic tm e n t. I. O n M a y2 2 , 2 0 0 6 , p o lice a rriv e d to th e 7 0 0 b lo c k o f E a st C h e stn u t S tre e t in C oat es vi l l e, Penns y l vani a w her e theyfound C annon and a not heri ndi vi dual l y i ng near eac h ot her , bot h appar ent l ys uffe r i ng fr om m ul t i pl e gun s hotw ounds . C annon w as appr oxi m at el y50 y ar ds aw ayfr om hi s 1998 B ui ck, and a ha ndgun and a ba g t hat appea r ed t o cont ai n m ar i j uana w er e w i t hi n hi s r eac h. I tw as l at erdi s cover ed thatC annon w as w ea ri n g b o d yarm o r. D et ect i ve M art i n Q ui nn, w ho arr i ved s hor t l yaft erC annon w as tr ans por t ed t o t he h o sp ital, w a s in f

o rm e d b ya sta te tro o p e r th a t a f rie n d o f C a n n o n ’s h a d a ttem p ted to r emove C annon’ s B ui ck fr om t he s cene . T her eaf t er , D et ect i ve Q ui nn tr ans por t ed the B ui ck t o the C oat es vi l l e Pol i ce St at i on w her e C orpor al M cEvoyand D et ect i ve Paw l i ng of the C oat es vi l l e C i t yPol i ce D epart m entobt ai ned a w arr antt o s ear ch the B ui ck. D ur i ng t he cour s e of the ens ui ng s ear ch, D et ect i ve Q ui nn found a . 357 M agnum and four t een r ounds of amm uni t i on i n t he trunk of the ca r . T her eaf t er , on M ay31, 2006, a gr and j uryr etur ned an i ndi ctm entchar gi ng C annon w i t h one countof pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fel on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) and 924( e) , and one c ountof pos s es s i on of b o d ya rm o r b ya p e rs o n c o n v ic te d o f a v io le n t f

e lo n y , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 3 1 . C annon s ubs equent l ym oved t o s uppr es s the evi dence thathad bee n s ei zed f r omT he di s t r i ctcourtdi d nots t at e w hyi tbel i eved the w arr antw as nots uppor t ed by 1 p ro b a b le c a u s e . W e n o te, th a t f

o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l, C a n n o n a lso a v e rs th a t th e a f f id a v it i n 2 th is c a se w a s d e lib e ra telyo r re c k les slyf a lse . H o w e v e r, as C a n n o n n e v e r ra ise d th is 3 the ca r . T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed thatm ot i on aft era s uppr es s i on hear i ng. T he courtrul ed th a t alth o u g h th e se a rc h w a rra n t w a s n o t su p p o rte d b yp ro b a b le c a u se , the p o lice a c ted in g o o d f a ith re lian c e o n th e w a rra n t an d th e e v id e n c e w a s th e re f o re a d m iss ib le p u rsu a n t to U ni t ed Stat es v. Leon , 4 6 8 U .S . 8 9 7 (1 9 8 4 ). T h e re a f ter , a ju ryc o n v icte d C a n n o n o f b o th 1 c o u n ts o f th e in d ic tm e n t, a n d h e w a s s e n te n c e d to a te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t o f

1 8 0 m o n th s . O n appea l , C annon ar gues t hatthe di s t r i ctcour terr ed by : ( 1) deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s phy s i cal evi dence ; ( 2) fi ndi ng thathe w as an “a r m ed ca r eercr i m i nal ” under the A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct( “A C C A ”) , codi fi ed at18 U . S. C . § 924( e) ; ( 3) as s i gni ng three crim inal h ist o ryp o ints pu rsua n t t o U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 1 (d) a n d U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 1 (e); (4 ) r e f u s in g to re d u c e h is s e n te n c e f o r a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 . 1 ; and (5) im p o sing a 6 0 m o n th se n tenc e o n C o u n t T w o w h ich h as a statu tory m a x im u m o f

3 6 m o n th s . W e w ill a d d re s s e a c h o f C a n n o n ’s a rg u m e n ts s e p a ra te ly. II. C annon fi r s tar gues t hatt he s ear ch w as nots uppor t ed bypr obabl e ca us e, and the g o o d f a ith e x c e p tio n to th e w a rra n t re q u ire m e n t d o e s n o t ap p lyb e c a u se “ th e a f f id a v it i s so lac k in g in in d icia o f

p ro b a b le c a u se a s to re n d e r o f f icia l b e lief

in its e x iste n c e e n tirely u n re a s o n a b le .” See A ppel l ant ’ s B r i ef a t p. 10. W e r evi ew the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ngs of 2a r g u me n tb e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t , a n d n o w f a i l s t o o f f e ra f a c tu a l b a s i s f

o rth i s c l a i m, we d e c lin e to a d d re s s it h e re . See U nited S tates v. R ose , 538 F. 3d 175 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( not i ng th a t a s u p p re ss io n m o tio n ra ise d f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l is w a iv e d a n d c o m p lete ly b a rr e d a b s e n t g o o d c a u s e ).

4 fac tata s uppr es s i on hear i ng forcl earerr or , butthe court ’ s appl i cat i on of l egal pr i nci pl es to th o s e f

a c ts re c e iv e s p le n a ry re v ie w . U ni t ed Stat es v. I

nigo , 9 2 5 F . 2 d 6 4 1 , 5 0 9 (3d C ir . 1991) ; and U

ni t ed Stat es v. R i ddi ck , 1 5 6 F . 3 d 5 0 5 , 5 0 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T he exi s t ence of pr obabl e ca us e fora s ear ch w arr anti s det erm i ned byan exami nat i on of the “t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s . ” I l l i nois v. G at es , 462 U . S. 213, 238- 3 9 (19 8 3 ). P rob ab le ca u se e x ist s w h en the to tal ityo f th e c ir cu m stan ce s su g g ests “‘the re i s a fa i rpr obabi l i t yt hatcontr aband orevi dence of a c r i m e w i l l be found i n a part i cul ar pl ace . ’ ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

odge , 246 F. 3d 301, 305 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng G at es , 462 U .S . at2 3 8 (19 8 3 )). I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Leon , 468 U . S. 897 ( 1984) , the Supr eme C our tadopt ed a “good fa i th” exc ept i on t o t he w arr antr equi r ementof the Four t h A m endment . Fol l ow i ng Leon , ev id e n c e w ill n o t b e su p p re ss e d m e re lyb e c a u se it i s s e ize d p u rsu a n t to a n in v a lid s ear ch w arr ant . R ather , a def endantm us ts how thatthe w arr antw as s o fac i al l ydefe ct i ve th a t r e lia n c e o n it w a s o b je c tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . H odge , 246 F. 3d a t 307 ( quot i ng U ni t ed S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 3 F. 3d 69, 74 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 )) . A ccor di ngl y , “[t ] he t es tforw hethert he good fai th exce pt i on appl i es i s w hethera r eas onabl yw el l - t r ai ned off i cerw oul d haveH odge i s es peci al l yi ns t ruct i ve her e, not i ng thatdi r ectevi dence l i nki ng the pl ace 3 to b e s e a rc h e d to th e c ri m e is n o t n e c e s s a ry f o r t h e is s u a n c e o f

a s e a rc h w a rr a n t. I

d. ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C onl ey , 4 F .3 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 )). “ ‘In ste a d , p ro b a b le caus e ca n be, and oft en i s , i nferr ed by‘ cons i der i ng the type of c r i m e, the natur e of the i t ems s ought , t he s us pect s oppor tuni t yforconce al m ent , and norm al i nfer ence about w h ere a c ri m inal m igh t hide ’ th e f ruit s o f h is cri m e.’” Id . ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 994 F. 2d 1051, 1056 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 756 F. 2d 703, 705 5 know n thatt he s ear ch w as i l l egal des pi t e the magi s t r at e j udge’ s author i zat i on. ” I d. ( ci t i ng Leon , 4 6 8 U . S . at 92 2 ). A l t hough “[t ] he mer e exi s t ence of a s ear ch w arr ant typ icall ysu ff

ices to p rov e tha t an o ff icer co n d u cted a se arc h in g o o d fa ith , ” the re a re c e rt a in s itu a tio n s w h e re a n o f f ic e r’ s re lia n c e o n a s e a rc h w a rr a n t w o u ld n o t b e re a s o n a b le . T hes e i ncl ude s i tuat i ons w her e a w arr anti s i s s ued: “( 1) i n r el i ance on a del i ber at el yor r eckl es s l yfal s e af

fi davi t , ( 2) w hen the magi s t r at e j udge aba ndoned hi s j udi ci al r ol e and fai l ed t o per form hi s neutr al and det ache d funct i on, ( 3) w hen the w arr antw as bas ed on an aff i davi ts o l acki ng i n i ndi ci a of pr obabl e ca us e as t o r enderoffi ci al bel i ef i n i t s exi s t ence e n tirelyu n re a so n a b le, o r (4 ) w h e n th e w a rra n t w a s s o f a c iallyd e f

icie n t th a t itf

a iled to part i cul ar i ze the pl ace t o be s ear ched orthe thi ngs t o be s ei zed. ” Id . a t 3 0 8 . H er e, t he af

fi davi taverr ed thatC annon w as i nj ur ed af t erbei ng i nvol ved i n an appar ent“s hoot - out . ” C annon w as di s cover ed nea ra handgun, a bag of m ar i j uana, and h is B u ick . T h e a f

f ian t sta ted th a t itw a s h is e x p e rie n c e th a t p e rso n s w h o u n law f u lly pos s es s fi r earm s and drugs fr equent l ykeep drug par aphernal i a, amm uni t i on and addi t i onal fi r earm s i n t hei rcar s and r es i dence s . Fi nal l y , pol i ce l earned thata fr i end of C a n n o n ’s a ttem p ted to re m o v e C a n n o n ’s B u ick f ro m th e sc e n e a f

ter th e sh o o t-o u t. T he 3(9 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 )) . 6

w a rr a n t th a t is s u e d d e s c ri b e d th e p ro p e rt yto b e s e a rc h e d a n d th e ite m s to b e s e iz e d . T hus , even a s s um i ng ar guendo th a t th e w a rra n t w a s n o t su p p o rte d b yp ro b a b le c a u se , itis abundant l ycl eart hatnone of the exc ept i ons t o Leon a p p ly , an d th e d istric t co u rt c lea rly d id n o t e rr in d e n y in g th e s u p p re s s io n m o tio n . III . N ordi d t he di s t r i ctcourterri n fi ndi ng thatC annon w as an “a r m ed ca r eer c ri m in a l” p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (e ). 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) ( 1) s t at es : “a pe r s on w ho vi ol at es s ect i on 922( g) . . . and has thr ee pr evi ous convi ct i ons . . . fora vi ol entfel onyora s er i ous drug offe ns e, orboth, comm i t t ed on occasi on s di fferentfrom on e ano t her. . . shal l be. . . i m pri soned no tl ess than fi ft een y ears , and. . . the courts hal l nots us pend the s ent ence of, orgr anta pr obat i onarys ent ence t o, s uch per s on w i th r es pectt o t he convi ct i on unders ect i on 922( g) . ” See 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) ( 1) . U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 4 pr ovi des : “A defe ndantw ho i s s ubj ectt o an enha nced s ent ence under the pr ovi s i ons of 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) i s an arm ed ca r eercr i m i nal . ” See U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 4( a) . C annon w as convi ct ed o f vi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) . A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatC annon had vi ol at ed the “a r m ed ca r eercr i m i nal ”pr ovi s i on o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (e )( 1 ) a n d th e re f o re im p o s e d a s e n te n c e p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 . 4 (b)(3 ).Ats e n t e n c i n g , Ca n n o n ’ s a t t o r n e ya r g u e d a g a i n s tth e p o l i c yo f a p p l y i n g th e ACCA 4 agai ns thi s cl i entbutexpr es s l yagr eed t o t he fa ctthatC annon w as : ( 1) convi ct ed of v i o l a t i n g § 9 2 2 ( g ) ; a n d ( 2 ) h a s t h r e e p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s f o ra s e r i o u s d ru g o f

f e n s e . A. R. 4 8 5 - A. 7 A ccor di ng t o t he Pr e- Sent ence R epor t( “PSR ”) , C annon has thr ee pr i orconvi ct i ons f o r se rio u s d ru g o f

f e n se s o r v io len t f

e lo n ies . A t se n ten c in g , C a n n o n e x p re ss e d h is d is a g re e m e n t w ith b e in g c la s s if ie d a s a n “ a rm e d c a re e r c ri m in a l.” A .R . 4 7 9 -A . H ow ever , hi s at t or neyexpr es s l ys t at ed thatthe PSR di d notcont ai n anyfac tual i n a c c u r a c i e s . A. R. 4 8 0 - A. 4 N o w , fo r th e f

irst tim e o n a p p e a l, C a n n o n c laim s th a t th e P S R in a c c u ra tely r epr es ent s hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand ther efor e the di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n cl as s i fy i ng hi m as an “a r m ed ca r eercr i m i nal . ” Speci fi cal l y , C annon ar gues thatbeca us e hi s num er ous drug convi ct i ons w er e i ncl uded i n t he s ame char gi ng document , theydo notqual i fyas havi ng been “ comm i t t ed on occ as i ons di ffe r entfr om one another . ” See U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .4 (b )( 3 ). C annon al s o cont ends t hatone of hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons foras s aul tw as actual l ya cha r ge f o r s im p le a s s a u lt w h ic h is n o t a “ v io le n t f e lo n y ” u n d e r t h e A C C A . C annon has w ai ved thes e obj ect i ons t o t he ac cur acyof the PSR bynotr ai s i ng t hem ats ent enci ng. See G overnm ent of V i rgi n Islan ds v. R osa , 3 9 9 F . 3 d 2 8 3 , 2 9 1 (3d C ir . 2005) . H ow ever , even a s s um i ng ar guendo th a tth e o b

j e c t i o n s h a d n o tb e e n wa i v e d , we w o u ld n e v e rt h e le s s c o n c lu d e th e ya re m e ri tle s s . T he PSR l i s t s num er ous offe ns es compri s i ng w hatcan onl ybe des cr i bed as an8

ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t or y . I n addi t i on t o num er ous j uveni l e off ens es , i n 1997 C annon pl ed gui l tyt o t w o count s of aggr avat ed as s aul t , tw o count s of del i veryof coc ai ne, and tw o count s of cons pi r acyt o pos s es s a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance w i t h i nt entt o del i ver . I ti s not di s put ed that , al t hough t hes e off ens es w er e cha r ged i n t he s ame com pl ai nt , the cr i m i nal conductunder l y i ng t hos e off ens es occurr ed on di ffe r entdat es . T hus , even i f one of C a n n o n ’s a ss a u lt co n v ictio n s w a s f o r sim p le a ss a u lt an d n o t ag g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, h e w o u ld s t i l l s at i s fyt he r equi r ement s forbei ng an A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal underthe A C C A bas ed on hi s t hr ee otherqual i fy i ng convi ct i ons - the uncont es t ed aggr avat ed as s aul tconvi ct i on a n d a t le a s t tw o f

e lo n yd ru g c o n v ic tio n s . I V. C annon’ s nextt w o ar gum ent s cont es tthe di s t r i ctcour t ’ s as s i gnm entof thr ee cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . §§ 4A 1. 1( d) , 4A 1. 1( e) , and the di s t r i ct c o u r t ’ s r e f

u s a l t o g r a n tC a n n o n a d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e f o ra c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i ty. H o w e v e r, w e n e e d n o t ad d re ss th e se m e ritles s a rg u m e n ts b e c a u se C a n n o n w a s s u b jec t to a mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence of 180 m onths bas ed on hi s cl as s i fi cat i on as an “a r m ed ca ree r crim inal. ” T h u s, ev en if th e c o u rth ad co m m itted e ith er o r bo th o f th e e rrors C annon compl ai ns of, hi s s ent ence w oul d have be en the s ame. V. C a n n o n ’s f

in a l cla im d o e s, h o w e v e r, h a v e m e rit. H e a rg u e s th a t h is 6 0 m o n th s ent ence of i m pr i s onm enton C ountI I exce eds the s t atut orym axi m um of 36 m onths forCannon did not object to the sentenc e on Count IIwhen it was imposed, a nd, as noted, 5 the g overnment now agree s that it ex cee ds the statutory maxi mum. Had def

ense c ounsel or the g overnment alerte d the cour t that the sentenc e imposed on Count I Iexceede d the statutory maxi mum at sentencing , the district court c ould have addresse d the problem then. 9 th a t o f f e n se , an d th e g o v e rn m e n t ag re e s. T h e e rro r w ill n o t ef f e c t C a n n o n ’s u lti m a te s ent ence as t he s ent ence on C ountI I w as concurr entw i t h t he 180 mont hs i m pr i s onm ent i m pos ed on C ountI . H ow ever , w e w i l l nevert hel es s r emand so thatthe di s t r i ctcour tcan co rrect th e e rror b yrese n tenc ing o n C o u n t I I. 5 V I. Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on on C ount s O ne and Tw o, butr emand forr es ent enci ng on C ountT w o.