2010 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 7-21-2010 

# U SA v . C h arles Duk

es 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 . 09-1724

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 h arle s Duke s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 924. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/924NOT 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. 09- 1724

_____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. CH A RL ES V . D U K ES, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 07- cr - 00169- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J uan R . Sanchez Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y16, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , J O R D A N and G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed : J ul y21, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. O n M a rc h 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , C h a rle s D u k e s w a s c h a rg e d in a f o u r-c o u n t in d ictm e n t w ith pos s es s i on of fi ve gr ams orm or e of c ocai ne bas e w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ); p o ss e ss io n o f f iv e h u n d re d g ra m s o r m o re o f c o c a in e w ith in ten t toT h e o f f ice r’s su rn a m e is v a rio u slysp e lled “ B o n a tt, ” “ B o n e tt, ” a n d “ B o n n a tt, ” in 1 addi t i on t o “B onnett , ” i n t he r ecor d m at er i al s . W e fol l ow the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s pel l i ng of th e o f f ic e r’ s s u rn a m e . 2 di s tr i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) ; pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur ther ance of a drug tr aff

i cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ; and pos s es s i on of a fi r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . Pr i ort o tr i al , D ukes f iled a m o tio n to su p p re ss p h y sic a l ev id e n c e se ize d b ylaw e n f o rc e m e n t at th e tim e o f

h is arr es t . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed D ukes ’ s m ot i on. D ukes pr ocee ded t o tr i al on O ct ober 20, 2008 and w as found gui l tyof al l char ges . T he D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 24 0 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent for the d rug and fel on -i n-possessi on off enses, as w el l as a m andat orycons ecut i ve t erm of 60 m onths forthe pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur ther ance o f d rug tr af

fick ing o ff

en se. D u k es b ri n g s this ap p ea l cha ll en g ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d en ial o f h is m o ti o n to su p p ress a n d im p o sit ion o f a sen tenc e a b o v e the ad v isory g u id e lin e s. F o r th e f

o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e rs o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I. A s w e w rite s o lelyf

o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill d isc u ss o n lyth o se f a c ts nece s s aryt o r es ol ve the appe al . A ccor di ng t o the t es t i m onyof off i cer s i nvol ved, on t he n ig h t o f A u g u st 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , ac tin g o n in f o rm a tio n re c e iv e d f

ro m a re liab le in f

o rm a n t, Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce O ffi cer s Fr ank B onnett , T hom as L acort e, and Fr ed W i l eys etup 1 s u rv e illa n c e in a n a lle yth re e h o u s e s n o rt h o f th e re a r g a ra g e a t 7 7 0 5 T e m p le R o a d . Shor t l yther eaf

t er , O ffi cerB onnettobs erved D ukes w al k thr ough the al l eyand open the3

gar age doorof the r es i dence at7705 T empl e R oad. O ffi cerB onnettthen obs erved a v e h icle p u ll i n to th e a re a in f ro n t o f th e g a ra g e . D u k e s a p p ro a c h e d th e v e h icle a n d b rie f ly confe rr ed w i th t he dr i ver . T he dr i verhanded D ukes m oney , D ukes r e- ent er ed the gar age a n d re tu rn e d a f

e w se c o n d s la ter to th e v e h icle , an d D u k e s h a n d e d th e d riv e r sm a ll uni dent i fi ed obj ect s . O ffi cerB onnettobs erved the s ame pat t ern of ac t i vi tyw i th a s econd v eh icl e. B ase d o n h is y ea rs of ex p erien ce an d tr ainin g as a P h il ad elph ia P o li ce O ff icer, o v e r se v e n y e a rs o f

w h ich h a s b e e n w ith th e N a rc o tic E n f o rc e m e n t T e a m , O f

f ice r B o n n e tt b e liev e d D u k e s w a s d istrib u tin g ill e g a l n a rc o tics . A c tin g o n th e b e lief th a t th e sm a ll u n id e n tifie d o b

jec ts D u k e s h a n d e d th e tw o d riv e rs w e re ill e g a l n a rc o tics , O f f ice r B o n n e tt and the tw o otheroffi cer s l eftthei runm arked ca rand appr oache d D ukes . U pon s eei ng the uni form ed off

i cer s , D ukes att empt ed t o cl os e the gar age door , butw as pr event ed fr om d o in g so b yO f

f ice r L a c o rte . T h e o f

f ice rs th e n sto p p e d D u k e s a n d , u p o n se e in g p o ss ib le i l l egal drugs and drug packa gi ng m at er i al i n pl ai n vi ew i n the gar age, pl ace d D ukes under a rr e s t a n d c o n d u c te d a s e a rc h o f h is p e rs o n . O ffi cerB onnettthen cont act ed Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce O ffi cerK apus ni ak, des cr i bi ng w hatthe off

i cer s had s een a nd found. O ffi cerK apus ni ak obt ai ned a s ear ch w arr antfor 7705 T empl e R oad. U pon exec ut i on of the s ear ch w arr ant , O ffi cerK apus ni ak r ecove r ed the fol l ow i ng i t ems: s i x cl earbags cont ai ni ng chunks of w hi t e s ubs t ance ; 100 zi p- l ock p a c k e ts c o n tain in g c h u n k yw h ite s u b sta n c e s; a b lac k g rin d e r; a g las s p late w ith w h ite r es i due; 2 bot t l es of i nos i t ol ; $2670 i n cas h; a s i l vergun box cont ai ni ng a l oaded Smi th &4

W e s s o n h a n d g u n ; a n d a b ill a n d P e n n s y lv a n ia lic e n s e in th e n a m e o f C h a rl e s D u k e s . U p o n c o n d u c tin g a f

ield tes t, O f

f ice r K a p u sn iak c o n f

irm e d th a t th e c h u n k yw h ite s u b s ta n c e w a s c o c a in e . A thi s s uppr es s i on hear i ng, D ukes di s put ed the off i cer s ’ ver s i on of the eve nt s t hat l ed t o hi s arr es t , and t es t i fi ed t o a dr amat i cal l ydi ffe r ents er i es of eve nt s . H e t es t i fi ed that a tth e t i me i n q u e s t i o n , h e wa s r e tu rn i n g f r o m th e s t o r e , a n d th a th e wa s p l a c i n g two r ece nt l ypur chas ed ca r t ons of det er gents oap i ns i de the gar age a thi s par ent s ’ hom e on 7 7 0 5 Te mp l e Ro a d wh e n Of f i c e rBo n n e t t , i n p l a i n c l o th e s , a p p r o a c h e d a n d h i th i m, k n o c k in g h is c e ll p h o n e to th e g ro u n d . D u k e s c laim e d th a t O f f ice r B o n n e tt y e lled a t h im and hi thi m agai n, befor e he ha ndcuff ed hi m . D ukes t es t i fi ed thatdur i ng thi s t i m e, other o f f ic e rs h a d b e g u n e n te ri n g a n d e x itin g th e g a ra g e , ru m m a g in g th ro u g h its c o n te n ts . D ukes deni es thatthe al l eged drug tr ans act i ons everoccurr ed, ar gui ng thathe had a l r eady b e e n a rr e s t e d w h e n th o s e tr a n s a c t i o n s s u p p o s e d l y t o o k p l a c e . T o s u p p o r th i s t e s t i m o n y, D u k e s o f f e re d a c e ll p h o n e v id e o th a t h e c la im e d d e p ic te d h is v e rs io n o f th e e v e n ts . O th e r t h a n D u k e s , n o w itn e s s w a s c a lle d to a u th e n tic a te th a t v id e o . T h e D istric t C o u rt c re d ited th e v e rsio n o f e v e n ts a s d e sc rib e d b yO f f ice rs B o n n e tt, K apus ni ak, and B ett s , and found D ukes , and D ukes ’ s ver s i on of eve nt s , notcr edi bl e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thatD ukes ’ s ver s i on of eve nt s w as nots uppor t ed byanythi ng i n the r ecor d, thati tw as contr adi ct ed bys i gni fi cantr ecor d evi dence , and thatthe vi deo w hi ch su p p o se d lyd e p icts th e e v e n ts o f th e A u g u st 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 e n c o u n ter w ith th e p o lice m e re lyT he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 23 1. W e exerci se 2 ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 5 depi ct ed “gr ayand r andom fl as hes of l i ght . ” A pp. 37- 38. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound that O f f ice r B o n n e tt h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st D u k e s f o r d ru g sa les , an d th a t p ro b a b le c a u s e s u p p o rt e d th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t, a n d s o d e n ie d th e m o tio n to s u p p re s s . II. 2

“ W e re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n to su p p re ss f

o r c lea r e rro r a s to th e u n d e rl y in g f

a c tu a l f in d in g s a n d w e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r q u e s tio n s o f la w .” Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 4 4 8 F .3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). A d d iti o n a lly , the “ a ss e ss m e n ts o f c re d ib ility b yth e tr ia l c o u rt a re e n title d to g re a t d e f e re n c e a t th e a p p e lla te le v e l.” U nited S tates v. B rothers , 7 5 F . 3 d 8 4 5 , 8 5 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). “T h is r ev iew is m o re defe r ent i al w i th r es pectt o det erm i nat i ons aboutthe cr edi bi l i tyof w i tnes s es , and w hen the d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n is b a se d o n tes tim o n yth a t is c o h e re n t an d p lau sib le, n o t in ter n a lly i ncons i s t entand notcontr adi ct ed byext ernal evi dence , ther e ca n al m os tneverbe a fi ndi ng of cl earerr or . ” Un i t e d S ta t e s v . I

g b o n wa , 1 2 0 F .3 d 4 3 7 , 4 4 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). D ukes ’ s i ni t i al m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence r ai s ed numer ous cons t i tut i onal ch all en g es to the p o li ce o ff icers’ ac ti o n s. D u k es’s a p p ea l fo cu ses e x clus ivelyo n D u k es’s w arr ant l es s arr es tand the s ear ch w arr antbas ed on O ffi cerB onnett ’ s pl ai n vi ew o b serv ati o n s o f th e g ara g e. T h e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d that “a ll the p o li ce ’s ac ti o n s w ere c o n s t i tu t i o n a l ” a n d s o i td e c i d e d th a t“ a l l th e e v i d e n c e w i l l b e a d m i t t e d . ” A p p . 3 8 . We6

a g re e . “Pol i ce ha ve pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es ti f the ci r cumst ance s ar e s uffi ci entt o caus e a prudentper s on t o bel i eve thata cr i m e has been c om m i t t ed and the per s on t o be arr es t ed comm i t t ed i t . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. St ubbs , 281 F. 3d 109, 122 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng B eck v. O h io , 379 U . S. 89, 91 ( 1964) ) . Pr obabl e ca us e i s det erm i ned bythe “t ot al i tyof ci r cumst ance s . ” Id . I n m aki ng ourdet erm i nat i on, w e exa m i ne “the eve nt s w hi ch occ ur r ed l eading u p to the st op or sear ch, and then the d eci si on w hetherthese his t ori cal fact s, vi ew ed fr om the s t andpoi ntof an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e pol i ce of fi ceramount t o” p ro b a b le c a u s e . O r nelas v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 7 U . S . 6 9 0 , 6 9 7 (19 9 6 ). H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatO ffi cerB onnetthad r ece i ved i nform at i on fr om a r el i abl e conf

i dent i al i nform antthatD ukes w as i nvol ved i n s el l i ng drugs fr om the 7705 T e m p le R o a d g a ra g e , tha t h e a n d tw o o th e r o f f ice rs p e rso n a llyw itn e ss e d D u k e s e n g a g e in tw o a p p a re n t d ru g tra n sa c tio n s f ro m th is lo c a tio n , an d th a t O f f ice r B o n n e tt “s a w in p lain vi ew a cl earpl as t i c baggi e cont ai ni ng s ever al gr een- t i nt ed pac ket s of the w hi t e chunky s ubs t ance l at eri dent i fi ed as cr ack c ocai ne” i ns i de the gar age a t7705 T empl e R oad. A pp. 36. T hi s i s cl ear l yenough t o es t abl i s h thatunderthe t ot al i tyof ci r cumst ance s , bas ed on hi s exper i ence , i ncl udi ng hi s fami l i ar i tyw i th i l l egal drug packa gi ng and di s tr i but i on, O f f ic e r B o n n e tt h a d p ro b a b le c a u s e to b e lie v e th a t D u k e s h a d c o m m itte d a c ri m e . B eca us e O ffi cerB onnetthad pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tD ukes , he coul d perm i s s i bl ys ear ch D u k e s in c id e n t to D u k e s’s a rre st, a s lo n g a s th e sc o p e o f th e se a rc h “ is c o m m e n su ra te7

w i th i t s purpos es of pr ot ect i ng arr es t i ng offi cer s and s afe guar di ng anyevi dence of the offe ns e of a r r es tthatan arr es t ee mi ghtconce al ordes tr oy . ” A r iz ona v. G ant , 55 6 U. S.

___, 129 S. C t . 1710, 1716 ( 2009) . H er e, the s ear ch of D ukes w as cert ai nl yw i thi n that s c o p e .D ukes al s o cont ends thatthe w arr antobt ai ned bythe pol i ce w as notbas ed on p ro b a b le c a u se . T h is c o n ten tio n h a s n o m e rit. A m a g istra te ju d g e m a yf in d p ro b a b le caus e w hen, vi ew i ng the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , “ther e i s a fa i rpr obabi l i tythat contr aband orevi dence of a c r i m e w i l l be found i n a part i cul arpl ace . ” I l l i nois v. G at es , 46 2 U . S . 21 3, 23 8 (198 3). In r eview i ng a decis i on grant i ng a sear ch w arr ant, w e m ust d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e m a g istra te ju d g e h a d a “ su b sta n tial” b a sis f o r f in d in g th a t p ro b a b le c a u s e e x is te d . Id . T he evi dence s uppor t i ng O ffi cerB onnett ’ s arr es tof D ukes

— i ncl udi ng the r el i abl e i nform ant ’ s t i p, O ffi cerB onnett ’ s per s onal ey ew i tnes s corr obor at i on of that t i p, and the drugs and drug par aphernal i a i n pl ai n vi ew i n the gar age— w as m or e than e n o u g h to s u p p o rt th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s d e c is io n to g ra n t a s e a rc h w a rr a n t. T he onl yconce i vabl e w ayi n w hi ch D ukes m i ghtpr evai l on anyof hi s cl ai m s t hat the p o li ce o ff

icers v iolated h is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts i s if h is ve rsi o n o f e v en ts w ere c r e d i t e d . T h e o n l ye v i d e n c e a l l e g e d l ys u p p o r t i n g Du k e s ’ s v e r s i o n o f e v e n t s i s h i s o wn t es t i m onyand a c el l phone vi deo, of dubi ous or i gi n, w hi ch does notcl ear l ydepi ct a n yth in g o th e r th a n “ g ra ya n d ra n d o m f las h e s o f lig h t,” a s th e D istric t C o u rt a p tly c h a ra c ter ize d it. A p p . 3 7 . T h e D istric t C o u rt’s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n w ith8

re s p e c t to D u k e s is e n title d to g re a t d e f e re n c e . B rothers , 7 5 F . 3 d a t8 5 3 . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e fi nd that the D i stri ctC ou rtproperl yden i ed all of D uk es’ s m oti on s t o sup press p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e . III . D ukes al s o cont ends thatthe above - gui del i nes r ange s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tw as unr eas onabl e and w as the pr oductof j udi ci al vi ndi ct i venes s , cl ai m i ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l yand undul yr el i ed upon D ukes ’ s s t at ement s at s ent enci ng i n deci di ng t o varyupw ar d fr om the advi s orygui del i ne r ange. T hi s cl ai m has n o m e ri t. W e r evi ew a D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence fi r s tt o ens ur e thatno s i gni fi cantpr ocedur al err oroccurr ed and then, as s um i ng the dec i s i on i s pr ocedur al l ys ound, t o eval uat e the s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ycal cul at ed a gui del i nes r ange of 200 t o 235 m onths bas ed on D ukes ’ s offe ns e l evel of 28 and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I . A tthe i ni t i al February3, 2009 s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our ti ndi cat ed i tw as cons i der i ng an upw ar d var i ance . D ukes w as then gi ven an opportuni tyt o al l ocut e. I n hi s addr es s t o t he Di s tr i c tCo u r t , Du k e s t o o k th e o p p o r tu n i tyt o a t t a c k th e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s wh o a rr e s t e d h i m, h is la w y e r, th e C o u rt, an d th e ju d icia l sy ste m . In o rd e r to g iv e D u k e s n o tice a n d to cons i derthe pr opr i etyof an upw ar d var i ance , the D i s tr i ctC our ts chedul ed a s econd9

s ent enci ng hear i ng. A tthe s ubs equentM ar ch 11, 2009, s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s tr i ct C our ti m pos ed an a bove gui del i nes s ent ence of 300 m onths , oran upw ar d var i ance of 65 m onths . D ukes ar gues on appea l thatthe s ent ence r efl ect ed a bi as on the partof the D is tr ic t C o u rt a n d is s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . W e d is a g re e . T he part i es do notdi s put e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ycal cul at ed the gui del i nes ran g e, did n o t trea t th e g u idelines as m an d atory , an d g av e d u e c o n side rati o n to the fa ctors e n u m e ra te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). G a ll , 5 5 2 U . S . at 51 . A s the D istri ct C o u rt comm i t t ed no pr ocedur al err or , w e cons i derthe s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the sent ence im po sed. “F or a sent ence to be sub st anti velyreas on able, a dis tri ctcou rtm ust appl ythe § 3553( a) fac t or s r eas onabl yt o the ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 498 F. 3d 185, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . O urr evi ew i s defe r ent i al and i nqui r es “w hetherthe fi nal s ent ence , w her everi tm ayl i e w i thi n the perm i s s i bl e s t atut oryr ange, w as pr emi s ed upon appr opr i at e and j udi ci ous cons i der at i on of the r el evantfac t or s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Schw ei t

z er , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). D ukes ’ s cr i m i nal conductbegan s oon aft erhe r eac hed the age of m aj or i tyand has c o n tin u e d to th e p re s e n t d a y . A t th e tim e o f h is a rr e s t, D u k e s w a s o n s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . D es pi t e havi ng been c onvi ct ed of a fel ony , D ukes has tw i ce be en found i n pos s es s i on of a f i r e a r m. H e re , D u k e s w a s f o u n d g u iltyo f

p o ss e ss io n o f

a lar g e a m o u n t o f

n a rc o tics w ith i ntentt o d i stri bu t e and po sses si on of a f i rearm i n fu rtherance o f drug traffi cking. T hese ar e s er i ous cr i m es . D ukes expr es s ed no r emors e and i ndeed e vi nced a l evel of cont empt10

th a tu n d e r s c o r e d h i s l a c k o f r e s p e c tf

o rth e l a w. I n l i ghtof D ukes ’ s i ndi vi dual hi s t oryand char act er i s t i cs , the D i s tr i ctC our tw as appr opr i at el ytr oubl ed bythe ade quacyof the g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e to d e ter D u k e s f ro m c o n tin u e d c rim in a l co n d u c t. A f ter th o ro u g h ly ad d ressing the f

ac tors in § 3 5 5 3 (a) an d the d ef en d an t’ s o w n stat em en ts, the D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thatan upw ar d var i ance w as appr opr i at e, ci t i ng D ukes ’ s “s ubs t ant i al cr i m i nal h isto ry , h is in a b ili tyto c o n f o rm h is c o n d u c t to th e law d u rin g su p e rv isio n , li k e lih o o d to r e- offe nd, cont empt forl aw and the l egal s y s t em, and l ack of r emors e forhi s conduct . ” A p p . 2 5 2 . A d d it ion all y , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in co n side ri n g D u k es’s s t at ement s as one of the fa ct or s i n det erm i ni ng hi s s ent ence . T he Feder al R ul e of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e R ul e 32( i ) ( 4) ( A ) ( i i ) r equi r es the di s tr i ctcourtt o gi ve the def endantan o p p o rtu n ityto ad d ress the co u rtb ef o re se n tenc ing . In d eterm ining the d ef en d an t’ s s ent ence , a di s tr i ctcourthas di s cr et i on t o cons i deranys uch s t at ement s m ade bythe d e f e n d a n t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ur

gos -A nduj ar , 275 F. 3d 23, 30 ( 1s tC i r . 2001) . W hi l e a defe nd ant’ s st at em ents m aym i l i t at e i n the defen dan t ’s favo r, a m arked l ack o f rem orse m ayal s o gi ve the di s tr i ctcourtr eas on t o i m pos e a s ent ence above the gui del i nes . “The Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , i n ei therthei rm andat oryoradvi s orys t atus , do noti ns ul at e a defe ndantfr om hi s orherow n fool i s hnes s . ” U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 424 F. 3d 992, 1017 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I n l i ghtof the above , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng or derw as cons i der ed and11

re a s o n a b le . W e w ill th e re f o re a f f ir m . IV . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt w ith r es pectt o t he deni al of the mot i ons t o s uppr es s evi dence and w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s s e n te n c in g o rd e r.