2005 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 3-22-2005 

# U SA v . S pi vey P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-2057

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . S p ivey " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1439. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1439NOT 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 . 04- 2057

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. L AWRE NC E S P I VE Y, a/k/ a D arr y l Spi vey L a w r e n c e S p i v e y, A p p e llan t

____________ O n 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. 03- cr - 00562- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on S u b mi t t e d P u r s u a n tt o Th i r d Ci r c u i tL. A. R. 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 8, 2005 B E F O R E : S C IR IC A , C h ie f J u d g e , a n d R O T H a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C ir c u it J u d g e s , ( Fi l ed M ar ch 22, 2005 ) OP I NI ON V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge, A ppel l antL aw r ence Spi veyappea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence i m pos ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t( B ay l s on, J . ) on t w o gr ounds . Spi veyfi r s tcl ai m s t hatt he pol i ce s t opped2

and fr i s ked hi m w i t houtr eas onabl e s us pi ci on i n vi ol at i on of hi s Four t h A m endment rig h ts. S e c o n d , S p iv e yc laim s th a t h is s e n ten c e v io late d h is rig h ts u n d e r th e S ix th A m endment beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed s ent enci ng enhanc ement s bas ed on a ju d icia l d e ter m in a tio n o f f a c ts n o t ch a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t, ad m itt e d b yth e d e f e n d a n t, orfound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . For t he r eas ons s etfor t h bel ow , w e af fi r m t he convi ct i on, vaca t e the s ent ence , and r emand forr es ent enci ng.

I . F ACTUAL AND PR OCEDURAL HI S TORY A . F a c ts R e lev a n t to th e S u p p re ss io n C laim O n Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 2 , at ap p rox im ately5 :50 p m , tw o P h il ad elph ia po li ce o ff icers d r o v e p a s tS p i v e y o n t h e 6 2 0 0 b l o c k o f B e l f i e l d S t r e e ta n d , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i rt e s t i m o n y, t houghtt hathe r es embl ed A ar on T hom as , a man w ho w as w ant ed byt he FB I and the P h i l a d e l p h i a P o l i c e De p a r t me n tf o rb a n k r o b b e r y . Th e o f f i c e r s we r e c a r r y i n g wi t h t h e m a “w ant ed fl y er ” cont ai ni ng a col orphot ogr aph of Thom as ’ head, s houl der s , and fa ce. T he fl y eral s o gave a l i m i t ed verbal des cr i pt i on of Thom as , l i s t i ng hi s r ace ( “bl ack” ) , s ex ( “mal e”) , w ei ght( “180”) , hei ght( “5' 9"” ) , hai rcol or( “bl ack” ) , age ( “23”) , and dat e of bi r t h ( “4/ 11/ 79”) . T he fl y eral s o s t at ed: T hom as i s w ant ed fort he r obberyof the C i t i zens B ank 6234 St ent on A ve. on 4/ 29/ 02. H i s l as tknow n addr es s es ar e 545 E. M ay l and St . and 538 T ul pehocke n St . T hom as m ayfr equentt he ar eas of C hew and W as hi ngt on Lan e a nd M us gr a ve St . a nd W a s hi ng t on Lan e . H e ha s pr e vi ou s V U FA arr est s and sho uld be co nsi dered arm ed an d d ang erous. A fter d ri v ing p ast S p iveyan d ag ree ing that h e re sem b led T h o m as, th e o ff icers3

ci r cl ed the bl ock t o r etur n t o w her e theyhad i ni t i al l ys een hi m . W hi l e ci r cl i ng t he bl ock, one of the off

i cer s l ooked aga i n att he w ant ed fl y er . T heyt hen s aw Spi veyw al ki ng aw ay f ro m th e sp o t w h e re th e yh a d in iti a llyse e n h im a n d to w a rd s th e in ter se c tio n o f B e lf ield S tr e e t w ith M a y la n d S tr e e t a n d C h e w A v e n u e . Th e o f f i c e r s g o to u to f

t h e i rc a ra n d , wh i l e S p i v e ywa s 1 5 - 2 0 f e e ta wa yf

r o m t h e m, as ked hi m t o s peak w i t h t hem. Spi veypaus ed, s i ghed, l ooked ar ound, and s t at ed, “I di dn’ tdo anyt hi ng. ” A pp. at54, 89. O ne of the off i cer s expl ai ned thathe w as l ooki ng fors om eone i n t he ar ea, and Spi veyr epl i ed, “I t ’ s notm e. ” I d. at90. T he off i cer s t hen as ked fori dent i fi cat i on, and Spi veyr es ponded thathe di d nothave a nyand w al ked t ow ar ds t he off

i cer s . A ccor di ng t o t hei rt es t i m ony , t he off i cer s bel i eved thatSpi veyw as an arm ed and da nger ous r obberys us pect , s o t heydeci ded t o “pat [] hi m dow n for w eapons . ” I d. at91. Spi veycompl i ed w hen the pol i ce a s ked hi m t o pl ace hi s hands on the p atrol ca r, an d o n e o f th e o ff icers f ri sk ed h im . T h e f

ri sk u n co v ere d a g u n in S p ivey ’s b a c k p o c k e t. O n Sept ember 2, 2003, Spi veyw as char ged i n a one- counti ndi ct m entw i t h bei ng a fel on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) . O n O ct ober3, 2003, Spi veym oved t o s uppr es s t he gun on the gr ounds t hatt he pol i ce di d nothave r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op and fr i s k hi m . H e ar gued thathi s appea r ance di d not s uffi ci ent l ym at ch the des cr i pt i on orphot ogr aph of A ar on T hom as t o gi ve r i s e t o a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on.4

A ft era D ece m ber5, 2003, s uppr es s i on hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed that Spi vey ’ s appea r ance w as di ffe r entfr om t he phot ogr aph of A ar on T hom as i n s ever al r es pect s . For i ns t ance , t he pi ctur e s how ed Thom as t o have a dar k compl exi on, w her eas S p iv e yh a s a m o re m e d iu m c o m p lex io n . In a d d iti o n , S p iv e yis b a ld , an d th e p h o to s how ed Thom as w i t h a ful l head of hai r . O ne of the off

i cer s al s o acknow l edged that S piveyhas narrow er ey ebrow s than T ho m as di d in the p ho t og raph. S piveyal so has a s m al l s carunderhi s l eftey e, and ther e w as no s i m i l ars carvi s i bl e i n t he phot ogr aph of A ar on T hom as . M os ts i gni fi cant , how ever , w as t he di ffe r ence i n w ei ghtbetw een Thom as and Spi vey . T he fl y erl i s t ed Thom as ’ w ei ghtas 180 pounds , and Spi veys t at ed thathe w ei gh ed 2 30 po un ds. O n t he otherhand, t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed s ever al s i m i l ar i t i es betw een Spi veyand t he inform at i on con t ai ned on t he fly er. T he tw o m en h ad si m i l ar hei gh t s ( S piveyi s 5' 8") a n d a re c lo se to th e sa m e a g e (S p iv e yw a s 2 8 y e a rs- o ld a t th e tim e ). S p iv e y ’s f a c ial h a ir w a s a lso sim ilar to T h o m a s’ f a c ial h a ir in th e p h o to g ra p h . T h e m o st s ig n if ica n t sim ilarity betw een Spi veyand the phot o of Thom as i s t hatt heybot h have “ fai r l yful l ” and “ r ound fa ce s. ” Id . at 13 2 . F u rt h erm o re, th e o ff icers en co u n tered S p iveyin an are a w h ere T h o m as w as k n o w n to f req u en t, ac co rdin g to the fly er. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o cr edi t ed the t es t i m onyof the tw o offi cer s and ac cept ed the governm ent ’ s r eas ons fordi s count i ng t he di ffe r ence s betw een Spi vey ’ s appea r ance and t he phot ogr aph of Thom as . For exampl e, t he pol i ce t es t i fi ed thatt heydi d notfi nd t he fa ctAt the suppression hea ring , Judg e B aylson init ially said, “Theweight is a litt le different, but 1 th e f ram e i s d i ff

er ent– th e f ram e i s th e s am e . . . . ” Ap p . at1 3 2 . Atth e s ent en ci n g h eari n g, ho we ve r, Judg eB aylso n c or re c te d th is s tate me nt o n th ere c ord a nd state d th at he“ int e nd e d to say : the weight is a litt le diffe rent, but the frame is the same .” I d. at 170. 5 t hatSpi vey ’ s head w as s haved t o be a s i gni fi cantfac t ori n det er m i ni ng w hetherhe m a tch e d th e d e sc rip tio n o f th e ro b b e rysu sp e c t b e c a u se T h o m a s c o u ld h a v e sh a v e d h is head a ft err obbi ng t he bank. I n addi t i on, al t hough Spi vey ’ s s carw as vi s i bl e fr om s even fee taw ayi n a court r oom , t he pol i ce e xpl ai ned thatt heyi ni t i al l yobs er ved hi m fr om at l eas t15 fee taw ayand di d nots ee a s car . W i t h r es pectt o t he di ffe r ence i n w ei ght , t he pol i ce t es t i fi ed that , al t hough Spi veydes cr i bed hi s ow n w ei ghtas 230 pounds , he di d not l ook t hatheavyw hen theyobs er ved hi m on t he s t r eetw ear i ng “baggy ” cl ot hi ng, w hi ch cover ed s om e of hi s bul k. M or eover , w ant ed fl y er s oft en do notacc ur at el ydes cr i be a s us pect ’ s w ei ght . O ne off i cers t at ed that , beca us e s om e of the hei ghtand w ei ght i nfor m at i on on fl y er s can be ol d ori nacc ur at e, t hey“go by , m or e the pi ctur e, hi s fac e compar ed t o t he pi ctur e. ” I d. at49. Fi nal l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound that , even though t he w ei ghti s “a l i t t l e di ffe r ent , ” thei rfr ames a r e the s ame. I d. at132, 170. 1 I n t he end, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, “I don’ tt hi nk t hey ’ r e thatdi ffe r ent , ” and that “the sim il arit ies are m u ch m o re tha n the d iffe ren ce s. ” Id . at 13 2 . T h e c o u rtthere fo re found t hatt he pol i ce r eas onabl ybel i eved thatSpi veyw as t he man w ant ed forbank robberyand act ed reasonab l yi n st op ping him . T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so no t ed thatt he fri sk w as r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof t he s t at ement on t he w ant ed fl y ert hatT hom as m aybe arm ed a n d d a n g e ro u s. F in a lly , the D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t itw a s re a so n a b le f o r th e o f f ice rs to6

r el yon t he fa ctt hatSpi veyw as notcarr y i ng i dent i fi cat i on and coul d notgi ve them any r eas on t o bel i eve thathe w as notT hom as . A s s uch, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatt he p o lice h a d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to se a rc h S p iv e ya n d th e re f o re d e n ied th e M o tio n to S up press . B . F a c ts R e lev a n t to th e S e n ten c in g C laim O n Jan u ary1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , S p iveyp lead g u il tyto o n e c o u n t of p o sses sion o f a firearm bya fe l on butr es er ved the r i ghtt o appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s unfavor abl e rul i ng on t he M ot i on t o Suppr es s . T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng on A pr i l 15, 2004, and s ent ence d Spi veyt o 66 m ont hs i n pr i s on, t o be fol l ow ed byt hr ee y ear s of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. I n det er m i ni ng t hi s s ent ence , J udge B ay l s on adopt ed the r ecomm endat i ons of t he U n ite d S ta te s P ro b a tio n O f f ic e c o n ta in e d in its P re s e n te n c e In v e s tig a tio n R e p o rt (“ P S R ” ). Bas i ng t ho s e r e c omm e nd a t i on s on t he U ni t e d St a t e s Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , t he PSR as s i gned Spi veya bas e off ens e l evel of 24 pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2K 2. 1( a) ( 2) beca us e of hi s t w o pr evi ous contr ol l ed s ubs t ance convi ct i ons . T he courtt hen appl i ed a thr ee- l evel d o w n w a rd a d

ju s tm e n t b a s e d o n S p iv e y ’s 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 . § 3E 1. 1. T he courtfi nal l yarr i ved ata G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of 57- 71 m ont hs by appl y i ng a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I V t o Spi vey ’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel of 21. S p ivey ’s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryw as se t atIV b ase d o n h is 9 c ri m inal h ist o ry p o ints. S p iveyd o es n o t dispu te t h e a p p li ca b il ityo f 6 crim inal h ist o ryp o ints, w h ich w ere bas ed on hi s t w o pr i orcontr ol l ed s ubs t ance convi ct i ons . O n appea l , how ever , he ar gues7

t hatt he appl i cat i on of t he other3 cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s vi ol at es hi s Si xt h A m endment rig h ts b e c a u se th e yw e re b a se d o n f a c ts n o t ad m itt e d o r p ro v e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . T w o of t hes e poi nt s w er e as s i gned bas ed on the j udge’ s fi ndi ng t hatSpi vey comm i t t ed the i ns t antoffe ns e w hi l e on par ol e. See U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 1( d) . T he otherpoi nt w as ass i gn ed b ased on t he judge ’s fi nd i ng t hat Spiveycom m i t t ed the i nst ant offense les s than tw o y ea rs af

ter his release fro m p ri so n . S ee U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 1 (e). H a d S p iv e yo n ly r ece i ved 6 cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s , hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw oul d have be en s etat II I, a n d h is s e n te n c in g ra n g e u n d e r t h e g u id e lin e s w o u ld h a v e b e e n 4 6 -5 7 m o n th s . A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , S p iv e yd e c lin e d to o b jec t to th e f

in d in g s c o n tain e d in t he PSR . A pp. at158. H e al s o admi t t ed thathe w as on par ol e w hen he c om m i t t ed the i ns t antoffe ns e, i d. at159, 164, and i ni t i al l yagr eed t o hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egorybei ng s etatl evel I V , i d. at158. Spi vey ’ s couns el agr eed thatt he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange w as 5 7 -71 m o n ths a n d o n lyarg u ed the issu e o f w h ere in the G u idelines ran g e S p ivey ’s s ent ence s houl d fal l . I d. at158- 59. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . F o u rth A m e n d m e n t C laim 1. St andar d of

R evi ew “Thi s C our tr evi ew s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s forcl ear err oras t o t he under l y i ng fac tual fi ndi ngs and exe r ci s es pl enaryr evi ew of the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the l aw t o t hos e fa ct s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Per ez, 280 F. 3d 318, 336Although theparties do not argue the issue on a ppeal, it also appe ars that the D istrict Court 2 was c orre ct to find that the statement on the w anted f lyer that Thomas could be a rmed a nd d an g e r o u s w o u l d

b es u f f i c i e ntt o j u s t i f

y s e ar c h i n gh i mf

o r w e a p o n s un d e r

T e r r y. S e eH e n s l e y, 46 9 U .S. at 23 5 ( a

se arc h o f a

su sp e c t’ s v e hic lefo r w e a po ns “ wa s w e ll w ith in t

hepe rm iss ibl e rang e in the conte x t of suspects who a re reporte d [i n a wa

nted flyer] to be ar

med and da

ng erous.” (c iti ngMic hig an v . L on g , 4 63 U. S. 1 03 2, 10 49 -5 0 ( 19 83 ); Penn sy lva nia v. Mimms, 43 4 U .S. 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We t h u s r e v i e w de novo the D istri ct C o u rt ’s co n clus ion that the o ff icers i n t hi s cas e had r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op and fr i s k Spi vey . U ni t ed St at es v. V al ent i ne, 2 3 2 F . 3 d 3 5 0 , 3 5 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (cit ing O rne las v . U n it ed S tat es, 51 7 U . S . 6 9 0 (19 9 6 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . R id d ic k , 1 5 6 F .3 d 5 0 5 , 5 0 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 )) . 2. A n a lys is I ti s w i t houtdi s put e thatt he off i cer s ’ s t op and fr i s k of Spi veyamount ed t o a s ei zur e underC al i for ni a v. H odar i D . , 499 U . S. 621, 626- 28 ( 1991) , t her ebyt r i gger i ng t he F o u rth A m en d m en t pro tecti o n ag ains t un rea so n ab le sea rch es a n d seizu res. Se e a lso T erry v. O hi o, 392 U . S. 1, 19 ( 1968) . U ndert he Supr eme C our t ’ s rul i ng i n T err y , t he pol i ce m a y , co n sis ten t w ith th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, sto p a n d f risk in d iv id u a ls w ith o u t p ro b a b le caus e if t heyhave a r eas onabl e, ar t i cul abl e s us pi ci on t hatcr i m i nal act i vi t yi s afoot . I d. at 20- 22; s ee a l s o I l l i noi s v. W ar dl ow , 528 U . S. 119, 123 ( 2000) . I ti s cl eart hat , had the pol i ce s een A ar on T hom as w al ki ng on t he s t r eet , t heyatl eas tw oul d have ha d s uffi ci ent r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, bas ed on the i nfor m at i on cont ai ned on the w ant ed fl y er , t o conduct an i nves t i gat i ve s t op. See U ni t ed St at es v. H ens l ey , 469 U . S. 221, 227- 33 ( 1985) ( fi ndi ng r eas onabl e s us pi ci on bas ed on i nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n a w ant ed fl y er , even w her e the su sp ec ted c ri m inal ac ti v ityh ad b ee n co m p let ed an d w as n o lon g er im m inen t or o n g o ing ). 2106, 110-11 (1977) (per curium)) ). 9 T hi s cas e thus boi l s dow n t o w hetherornott he off i cer s w ho s t opped Spi veyhad a r eas onabl e, good fai t h bel i ef thathe w as i n fac tA ar on T hom as . H i l l v. C al i forni a, 401 U .S . 7 9 7 , 8 0 2 (1 9 7 1 ) (p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st o n e su sp e c t g iv e s ris e to p ro b a b le c a u se to arrest an ind ividu al w h o m the p o li ce rea so n ab lyb eli ev e is t h at su sp ec t) . O n appea l , Spi veyfocus es on t he di ffe r ence s betw een hi s appea r ance and the d e s c r i p t i o n a n d p h o t o o f Th o ma s . W e a g r e e wi th t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tt h a tt h e r e a r e s o me di ffe r ence s t o be found. H ow ever , i ti s nott he t as k of the C our tof A ppeal s t o conductan iso late d re v iew o f

e a c h f a c to r re lied o n b yth e o f f ice rs a n d th e D istric t C o u rt in det er m i ni ng t hatt her e w as r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op Spi vey . U ni t ed St at es v. A r vi zu, 5 3 4 U .S . 2 6 6 , 2 7 4 (2 0 0 2 ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt sta ted in A rv izu th a t T e rry“ p re c lu d e s th is s or tof di vi de- and- conqueranal y s i s . ” I d. I ns t ead, appel l at e court s m us tr evi ew t he “t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s ” r el i ed on i n m aki ng t he r eas onabl e s us pi ci on d e ter m in a tio n . Id . at 2 7 3 ; se e a lso U n ited S tate s v . S o k o lo w , 4 9 0 U .S . 1 , 8 -9 (1 9 8 9 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . C o rt e z , 4 4 9 U .S . 4 1 1 , 4 1 7 (1 9 8 1 ); V a le n tin e , 3 2 3 F .3 d a t 3 5 3 . In re v iew in g th e to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, w e g iv e su b sta n tial d e f e re n c e to b o th the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fa ctua l determ ination s an d the in fe ren ce s d raw n b ythe o ff icers on t he s cene . O r nel as , 517 U . S. at699; V al ent i ne, 232 F. 3d at355. H er e, t he D i s t r i ct C our tfound t hatthe off i cer s w ho s t opped Spi veyw er e cr edi bl e, t hatt her e w er e i m por t ant s i m i l ar i t i es betw een Spi veyand Thom as , and thatt he “s i m i l ar i t i es ar e more t han theUp on reviewi ngph oto gra

ph s o f S piv e y

and Th oma s, wec ann ot s ay

tha t th eDi stric t Co ur

t’ s 3 findingthat th etw o men h a d a number o f s imi lar f

a c ia l f e ature s w a s c le arly

e rron e ou s. As noted, wedefer to the District Court’s findingthat the offic ers were c redible a nd that 4 they were ac ting in g ood faith. Cf. United States v. L awe s, 292 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2002) . The Sec ond Circuit in L awe s was 5 fac ed with a f

actual background ver

y simil ar to the c ase be foreus. In L awe s, the police were looking f or a murder suspec t and were re lying on a mugshot along w ith a description of the suspect’s ag e, ra ce, w eight, height, and sca rs. They stopped the def

endant be lieving that he was the murder

suspect. Thedefendant was a ctually taller a nd weighed 40 pounds more tha n the suspect and had a distinctive scar on his face . The Sec ond Circuit, consideringall of the re levant circ umstances, uphe ld the District Court’s findingof re asonablesuspicion, “notwithstanding some diffe renc es,” be causethe two men had similar f acial features. I d. at 127. The Sec ond Circuit also noted that the District Court had c redited theofficers’ testimony and ac cepte d the 10 d iffe ren ce s. ” T h ese are all fa ctua l fi n d ing s tha t w e w il l no t distu rb a b sen t cl ea r error. 3 F urtherm ore, t he tot al i t yof the ci rcum st ances surr ou nd i ng S pivey ’s st op and fri sk su p p o rt th e D istric t C o u rt’s le g a l co n c lu sio n th a t th e p o lice a c ted w ith re a so n a b le s us pi ci on. T he patr ol l i ng offi cer s s aw a man w ho t heybel i eved, i n good fai t h, had 4 s i m i l arfac i al fea tur es t o a s us pect ed arm ed r obberi n a hi gh- cr i m e ar ea w her e the s us pect w a s k n o w n to f

re q u e n t. B o th m e n h a d “ f a irlyf u ll” a n d “ ro u n d f

a c e s” a n d w e re sim ilar in hei ghtand age . A l t hough t her e i s a di ffe r ence i n w ei ghtbetw een the tw o m en, t he pol i ce act ed reasonab l yi n rel y i ng m ore on thei r com pari son o f S pivey ’s face to T ho m as’ p h o tog rap h b ec au se, ba sed o n their ex p erien ce , the w eigh t i n fo rm ati o n o n w an ted f ly ers i s oft en ol d and i nacc ur at e. M or eover , t he off i cer s s t opped Spi veyt w o m ont hs aft er T hom as al l egedl yr obbed the bank, and i ti s notunr eas onabl e t o thi nk t hathe coul d have gai ned w ei ghti n t hatt i m e. I n addi t i on, Spi veyw as w ear i ng baggycl ot hi ng w hen the offi cer s s t opped hi m , m aki ng i tdi ffi cul tt o acc ur at el yas s es s hi s w ei ght . Fi nal l y , t he 5explanation for disreg ardingthe diffe renc e in weight – that the defendant was w earing a heavy coat when the offic ers sa

w him. I d. On appe al, Spivey

argues that he should not be f aulted for his failure to c arr

y identification, 6 a s it wa s n ot u

nu su a l un de r t

hec irc ums tanc e s to le aveho mewi tho ut i de nti fi c atio n. Spi ve y is c or re c t to po int

out th at th efailureto c arr y identi fi c atio n o n it s o wn do e s n ot c re atea

re a so na ble suspicion. As noted, however, wemust view the totality of the c ircumstance s. Oncethe police rea sonably

believed that Spivey

was a n arme d and dang erous robbery suspect, the f

act that he could not produceidentification to the contra ry adds to the mixof fa cts fac ing thepolice whe n they deter mined whether

or not an investig ative stop was wa rra nted. 11 D istric t C o u rt w a s c o rre c t to n o te th a t th e o f f ice rs r e a so n a b lyre lied o n S p iv e y ’s f a ilu re to pr oduce i dent i fi cat i on t o di s pel t hei rs us pi ci on t hathe w as A ar on T hom as . C f. H i l l , 401 U . S. at803 & n. 9 ( t he def endant ’ s abi l i t yt o pr oduce i dent i fi cat i on i ndi cat i ng t hathe w as n o t th e su sp e c ted a rm e d ro b b e r th e p o lice w e re lo o k in g f o r w a s “ e n tit led to lit tle w e ig h t” b ec au se “ ali ase s an d fa lse i d en ti fica ti o n s are n o t un co m m o n . ”). 6 B eca us e the pol i ce a ct ed bas ed on thei rr eas onabl e, good fai t h bel i ef thatSpi vey w as an arm ed and da nger ous r obberys us pect , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatt he s t op and fr i s k of Spi veyw as j us t i fi ed byr eas onabl e s us pi ci on. W e ther efor e af fi r m t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f S p iv e y ’s M o tio n to S u p p re s s . B . S ix th A m e n d m e n t C laim 1. St andar d of

R evi ew B ec au se th is case w as p en d ing o n d ir ec t r ev iew at t h e ti m e o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. __, 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , w e w i l l appl yt he ruli n g o f th at ca se. W e m ayo n lyrev iew S p ivey ’s sen tenc e f o r plain e rror, h o w ev er, beca us e he f

ai l ed t o r ai s e a Si xt h A m endment obj ect i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . See i d. at12

7 6 9 ; U n ite d S ta te s v . V a z q u e z , 2 7 1 F .3 d 9 3 , 9 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 2. A n a lys is U n d er B o o k er a n d A p p ren d i v. N ew Jerse y , 5 3 0 U . S . 4 6 6 , 4 8 8 (20 0 0 ), co u rt s are perm i t t ed to base sent ences o n fac t s adm i t t ed b yt he d efen dan t . U nd er the G uidel i nes, cou nsel ’s adm i ssi on t hat Spiveyw as on p arol e w hen he co m m i t t ed the i nst ant offense m ayhave be en s uffi ci entt o r ai s e Spi vey ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e fr om 6 t o 8. See U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 1( d) . A s s uch, even w i t houtt he addi t i onal enhanc ement forcomm i t t i ng th e p re se n t o f

f e n se les s th a n tw o y e a rs a f ter b e in g re lea se d f

ro m p riso n , S p iv e ym ig h t still h a v e a c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f IV . S e e id ., a t § 5 A (a ss ig n in g c a teg o ryIV to defe ndant s w i t h a cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e a of 7, 8, or9) . I ti s t hus atl eas tar guabl e that the re su lt ing sen tenc e d id n o t violate the S ixth A m en d m en t as i n terpreted b yB o o k er. H ow ever , i n addi t i on t o hol di ng t hats ent enci ng enhanc ement s undert he G ui del i nes m ayvi ol at e the Si xt h A m endment , t he Supr eme C our ti n B ookeral s o hel d t hat the G u idelines are ad v isory . B o o k er, 12 5 S . C t. at 75 7 . A s su ch , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s m andat or yappl i cat i on of t he G ui del i nes t o Spi vey ’ s s ent ence w as i n err or , and w e ca nnot s ayfr om t he r ecor d befor e us w hethert haterr or“had a s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous eff ector i nfl uence i n det er m i ni ng t he [s ent ence ] . ” K ot t eakos v. U ni t ed St at es , 328 U . S. 750, 776 (1946 ). T herefore, hav i ng determ i ned t hat the sentenci ng i ssues Spiveyrai ses ar e best det er m i ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and re m a n d f o r r e s e n te n c in g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith B o o k e r.