# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 20 95

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro sc oe Ch am

be rs

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 7, 20 14 Fi le d: May 21, 2 01 4 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, COLLOTO N, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

A jury fo un d Ro sc oe Ch am be rs g u il ty of two co un ts of di st rib ut in g co cai ne ba se an d on e co un t of po ss es si ng wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e at le as t 28 gr am s of co cai ne ba se

. Se e 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 ). At tri al
, Ch am be rs el ect ed to pr oc eed pr o se wit h st an db y co un se l. The ve rd ic t was bas ed on ev id en ce tha t Chambers m ad e two dr ug sa le s to a co nf

id en ti al i n f

o r man t (CI) whi le po li ce of fic ers co nd uc te dsu rv ei ll an ce, as well as ev id en ce th at ad di ti on al dr ug s an d th e bu y m on ey were

reco ve red fro m a se arch of hi s ap art m en t a n d car. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced 1
C h a m be rs as a care er of

fen de r to 36 0 m on th s in pr is on an d 8 y ears of su p e r v i s e d rel eas e. Ch am

be rs ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce and a ho st of pr et ria l, tri al
, an d se nt en ci ng ru li ng s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is co ur t affi rm s.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g, wit ho ut a he ari n g , Ch am be rs ’s

m ot io ns to su pp res s. Pro ba bl e cau se f o r t h e s earc h warra nt was es ta bl is he d by a Dav en po rt po li ce of

fic er’s s t at em en ts de sc rib in g th e in ve st ig at io n, th e CI’s rece nt
pu rch as e of crac k co cai n e f r o m Ch am

be rs , an d th e of

fic er’s st at em en t th at a ch eck th ro ug h th e en erg y co m pa ny co nf

irmed Ch amb ers was th e ut il it y ho ld er at th e
ap art m en t he app ro ach ed aft er the tra ns act io n. Se e Uni te d St at es v. All en , 70 5 F.3d
36 7, 3 6 9 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 13 ) (rev ie w of fact ua l fin di ng s is fo r cl ear erro r an d ul ti m at e
qu es ti on of whe th er Fo ur th Am en dm en t was vi ol at ed is de no vo ); Uni te d S t a t e s v. Lu cca , 37 7 F .3d 92 7, 9 31 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4) (se tt in g o ut when he ari ng is req ui red ).

The di st ric t co ur t’s ad ve rs e pr et ria l ru li ng s di d no t de pr i v e C h a mb e rs of du e
pr oc es s or es ta bl is h jud ic ia l bi as

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Oak s , 60 6 F.3 d 53 0, 53 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (l eg al ly sou nd ad ve rs e ru li ng s d o n o e st ab li sh jud ic ia l b ia s) . Th e d is tri ct

co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g Ch am be rs ’s m ot io ns to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t an d fo r a ch an ge of ve nu e, or in de nyin g hi s ch al le ng e to th e raci al co m p o s i t io n of th e jury

pa ne l. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Rod ri gu ez , 41 4 F.3 d 83 7, 84 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (co nc lu so ry al le ga ti on s of fal se ho od are in su ff i c i e n t fo r di sm is sa l of in di ct m en t ba se d on fal se
te st im on y pre se nt ed to gra nd jury); Uni te d St at es v. St an ko , 52 8 F .3d 58 1, 5 84 (8t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (ab se nt pr ejud ic e to de fen se , de ni al of m ot io n fo r ch an ge of ve nu e can no t be co ns id ered ab us e of di sc ret io n) ; Uni te d St at es v. Jef fe rs on , 72 5 F.3 d 82 9, 83 5 (8 th

The Hon or ab le St ep ha ni e M. Ro se , U n i t e d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-Ci r. 20 13 ) (Co ns ti tu ti on do es no t gu aran te e pr op or ti on at e nu m be r of de fen da nt ’s raci al gr ou p on jury po o l o r jury whi ch tri es hi m ), cer t. de ni ed
, 20 14 W L 16 59 95 7 (2 01 4)

.

Thi s co ur t fin ds no ab us e of di sc ret io n in a n y c h al le ng ed ru li ng s in vo lv in g wit ne s s e s o r ev id en ce. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Val en zu el -Ber na l, 45 8 U.S. 85 8, 86 7 (1 98 2) ; Uni te d St at es v. Gar ci a- Her na nd ez , 68 2 F.3 d 76 7, 77 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), cer t. de ni ed , 1 33 S. Ct

. 1 6 0 8 ( 2 0 13 ). The re is no m eri t to Ch am be rs ’s a ss ert io n th at th e jury was no t pr ov id ed an in st ru ct io n ab ou t th e cred ib il it y of a CI. Ch am be rs di d no t

o b je ct to th e rep la cem en t of a si ck juro r wit h an al te rn at e, an d he ag reed to k e e p a juro r who ex pr es se d co nc ern ab ou t he r sa fet y bu t co nf irmed he r ab il i t y t o co nt in ue whe n sh e was qu es ti on ed

. The re is n o i n d ic at io n in th e reco rd th at Ch am be rs

s u f fere d pr ejud ic e as a res ul t of th e di st ric t co ur t’s se cu rit y m eas ur es req ui rin g

ev eryone to rem ai n se at ed
, an d he di d no t ob ject to th e pr es en ce of se cu rit y pe rs on ne l.

Ch am be rs ha s no t su pp or te d a cl ai m of pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t ba se d on hi s

co nc lu so ry

ass ert io ns th at he was c on vi ct ed ba se d o n fa ls e wit ne ss tes ti m on y , fal se la b rep or ts , an d pl an te d ev id en ce. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Boo ne , 43 7 F.3 d 82 9, 84 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). To th e ex te nt hi s cl ai m s of fal se te st imo n y i n v o lv e wit ne ss cred ib il it y ,
su ch m at te rs are fo r th e jury. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ki rk ie , 26 1 F.3 d 76 1, 76 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). Ove rwh el m in g ev id en ce supp or te d th e ve rd ic ts

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Sa mue ls
, 61 1 F .3d 91 4, 9 17 -1 8 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ) (s ta nd ard of r ev ie w).

As to hi s se nt en ce, th e go ve rn m en t pr ov id ed Ch am be rs wit h ti m el y no ti ce th at he was su bjec t to an in crea se d pr is on te rm un de r 21 U.S.C. § 85 1 ba se d on hi s pr io r fel on y dr ug co nv ic ti on

. Th e r e w a s no vi ol at io n of All eyn e v. Uni te d St at es , 1 33 S.
Ct

. 21 51 (2 01 3)

. The di st ric t c o u r t le ft no un res ol ve d se nt en ci ng ob jecti on s. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin d i n g C h a m be rs ’s pr io r Ill in oi s bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on in vo lv in g a va can t dwel li ng , co up le d with hi s arm ed ro bb ery co nv ic ti on , su pp or te d

-3

-care er-o ffen de r se nt en ci ng

. Se e U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 (a ); Uni te d St at es v. Max wel l
, 36 3

F.3 d 8 15 , 82 0- 21 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-