# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d M ay 25, 20 10 Deci ded M ay 26, 20 10 B efo re W IL L IA M J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09- 2708 UNI TE D S TAT ES OF AM ER I CA , P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v. E L I JO N E S, JR ., D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct C ou rtfor th e E as te rn D ist ric t o f W isc on sin N o. 09
- CR
- 19- 001 J . P. S tadtm uel l er, Judg e . O R D E R A n info rm an t’s tip led p olic e t o ge t a w ar ra n t a n d se ar c h th e h om e o f E li Jon es , Jr., a felo n, w h er e t h ey fou n d a loa d ed gu n on h is n igh t s ta n d . A fte r th e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied h is m otion to su p p ress th e gun , J one s ent ered a cond iti ona l gu il ty p lea to posse ssion of a fi re ar m , 18 U . S. C. § 9 22( g) ( 1) , i n w hi ch he pr ese rv ed hi s r i ght t o chal l enge the s up press i on rul i ng. He w as sente nced to 48 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, 9 m onths bel ow the advi sory r ange of57to 71 m onths. J ones fi l ed a no ti ce o fappeal, but hi s a pp oi nted l aw yer s s eekto w ithd raw un d er A nders v. Ca li forni a , 3 86 U. S . 7 38 ( 19 67 ) , b ec au se the y c anno t i den ti fy a ny n o n fr i v o l o u s a r g u me n tt o p u r s u e . J o n e s d i d n o tr e s p o n d t o c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w, NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1 NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 2708 Page 2

see C IR . R. 51 (b ), so w e lim it ou r re vie w to th e p ot en tia l issu es id en tifie d in c ou n se l’s fa c ially ad eq u at e b rie f, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Schuh , 289 F.3d 968 , 973-74 (7th C ir. 2002). The war r an t to s ea r chJ o ne s’ s ho m e was b as ed o n the a ffi dav i t o fOffi ce rTi m o thy Ban dt. Ba ndta tt es te d tha t a co nfi den ti ali nf o r m an t wi the xt en si ve kno wl edg e o fdi ffer en t t y p e s o ffi r e a r ms h a d s e e n J o n e s a r me d w i th a b l a c k, s e mi
- a u t o ma t i c p i s t o la tJ o n e s ’ s h o me w i thi n the l asttwo w eek s. Bandt al so expla i ned that the info rm ant c or re ctl y pi cked J ones ou t of a p hot ograp hic line up and knew J one s’s nam e, his ex act ad d ress, and the location’s physi call ayo ut. M or eov er, acc or ding to Band t, the i nfo rm ant had pre vi ousl y i denti fi ed f or th e po li ce oth er l ocat ions con taining firearm s and i ll egal dru gs, w ith tw o of th e inform an t’s ti ps l ea di ngt o a r r es ts a nd pr o se cut i o ns . T he i nf o r m an t di d no t, ho wev er, e xpl ain h o w he k ne w J o ne s, why he was a t th e ho m e, o rwher e wi th i n the ho m e he s aw the g un. J o ne s mo v e d t o s up pr e s s the g uno n the g r o un d tha tthe a ffi da v i tdi d n o tp r o v i de p ro b ab le c au se . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied Jon es ’s m ot ion, fin d in g th at th er e w as p ro b ab le cause, and that eve n i fther e were not, suppress i on would be unj usti fi ed beca use the pol i ce r el i ed o n the war r an t i n g o o d f ai th . A t s en te n c in g th e d ist ric t c ou rtas se ss ed a b as e o ffen se lev el of 2 4, see U .S.S.G § 2 K 2.1 (a)( 2), an d d ed u c te d 3 lev els for a c c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility , see U . S. S. G . § 3E 1.1( a), ( b) . J ones ’ s pri orco nvi cti ons gave hi m 6 cri m i nalhi sto rypoi nts, and he r ecei ved 2 m or e for p os se ss in g th e g u n w h ile h e w as on p ar ole , see U . S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 1( d), thus pr oducinga c rim in al h ist or y c at eg or y of IV . T h at ca te go ry , com b in ed w ith h is a dj u st ed offe n se lev el, y i el ded a g ui del i ne s r an g e o f5 7 to 7 1 m o nths . In s el ec tinga s en te nc e 9 m o nths b el o w the bot tom o fthatr ange, the dist ri ct c ourtcr edi ted J ones ’ s co ntenti on that he had confi scat ed th e gun from his da ug ht er’s boyfri en d to keep the boy fri en d out of trouble. Sti ll, the cou rt expla i ned, the offense w as ser i ous b ecause J ones knew he sho uld have go ne to the pol i ce i nstea d ofta ki ng m att er s into hi s o w n hands and keepi ng the gun, and beca use the l oaded gun endanger ed the chi l dren i n hi s ho m e. Cou ns elfi r stc o ns i derc o nt es tingwhethe rpr o babl e ca us e su ppo r ts the war r an t. T he w ar ra nt’ s v al i dity r est s s ol el y o n the affi davi t’ s s tr ength i n supp l yi ng a re aso nabl e ba si s for b elie vin g th at a se ar c h w ill un c ov er ev id en c e o f a c rim e. SeeU nite d States v. P eck, 31 7 F . 3d 75 4, 75 5 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); U nite d States v. R oth , 3 91 F . 2d 50 7, 5 09 ( 7th Ci r . 1 96 7) . In a ss es sing th at affid av it, w e w ou ld co n sid er th e t ot alit y of c irc u m st an c es , in c lu d in g th e le ve l of d et ail provi ded bythe i nfo rm ant a nd wh ethertho se detai l s a re bas ed on per sonalo bser vati ons, th e tim e interval betw een the obs ervation s and the w arran t ap p li cation, the inform an t’s per so na la ppea r an ce b efo r e th e war r an t- i ss ui ngj udg e, a nd a ny c o r r o bo r at i o n o fthe in for m an t’s tip . U nite d States v. Holli ngswo rth , 495 F.3d 79 5, 80 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); U nited Sta tesN o. 09
- 2708 Page 3

v. Koerth , 31 2 F . 3d 862, 86 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) . No f acto r i s dete rm i nati ve, and an insuffi ci ency inon e c ou ld be co m p en sa te d for b y s om e o th er ind ica to r of re liab ility . U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i s m uke, 593 F.3d 58 2, 58 7 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U nite d States v. B rack, 188 F.3d 748 , 756 (7th C ir. 19 99 ) . In pe r f o r m i ngthi s i nqui r y, we woul d a ff o r d “ g r ea t defer en ce ” to the i ss ui ng m ag ist ra te ’s c on c lu sio n . D i s m uke, 59 3 F . 3d at 586 ( ci t i ng U nited Sta tes v. M cIn tire, 51 6 F . 3d 57 6, 57 8 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct . 73 (2008)). He r e , wi th d e fe r e n c e t o th e i s s u i n gma g i s t r a t e a n d f o rth e s a me r e a s o n s th a twe g av e i n D i s m uke, th e a ffid av it c on ta in s e n ou gh d et ails to su p p or t p ro b ab le c au se . A s in D i s m uke, th e a ffid av it e x p lain s t h at th e in for m an t p er so n ally sa w th e d efe n d an t a rm ed in hi s ho m e sh o r tlyb efo r e th e war r an t appl i ca ti o n, tha t he kne w J o ne s’ s ex ac t addr es s an d w h at h e loo ke d like, an d th at th e in for m an t k n ew h ow to d ist in gu ish am on g fire ar m ty p es . The a ffi dav i t’ s i nfi r m i ti es — a l ac ko fde ta i labo utthe pr ec i se l o ca ti o n o fa g un ins i de th e hom e or the relationsh ip betw een i nform an t and sus p ect, togeth er w ith th e inform an t’s f a i l u r e t o a p p e a rb e f o r e th e ma g i s t r a t e —a r e th e s a me a s th o s e th a ti n fe c t e d th e wa r r a n twe uphe l d i n D i s m uke . See 593 F. 3d at 587- 88. But the i nd i ci a o fr el i abi l i ty here ar e s tr onge r th anf o rthe war r an t we uph el d i n D i s m ukebec ause the info rm ant in thi s ca se al so had p re vio u sly giv en u se fu l tip s t o p olic e. SeeU nite d States v. G arci a , 528 F.3d 481 , 486 (7th C ir. 20 08 ), cert. denied , 12 9 S . Ct. 42 2 ( 2008 ) . Thus, we agr ee w i th co unselthati t would be fri vol ous t o conte st the e xi ste nce o fpro babl e ca use. C ou n se l also co n sid er ch alle n gin g th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s a lte rn at ive ru lin g th at, eve n if th e affi dav i t wer e defi ci en t, the o ffi ce r s’ g o o d- f ai thr el i an ce o n the war r an t sh o ul d k ee p the gu n from be in g e x c lu d ed . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Le on , 468 U .S. 89 7 (1 98 4); U ni t e d S t at e s v. O tero , 4 9 5 F . 3 d 3 9 3 , 3 9 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) . S u c ha c h a l l e n g e wo u l d ma t t e ro n l y i fwe concl ud ed that probabl e ca use was l acking. In any eve nt, the affi davi t was notso devoi d of ca us e to s ea r chtha t no r ea so nabl e o ffi ce rwoul d r ely o n i t, s o J o ne s co ul d no t r eb utthe p re su m p tio n of go od fait h cr ea te d by th e o ffice rs ’ d ec isio n to se ek a w ar ra n t. Se eD i s m uke, 59 3 F . 3d at5 88 ( “[ U]n derthe g o o d- f ai the xc ept i o n, the s uppr es si o n o fthe fr ui ts o fthe se ar c h w ou ld n otbe ap p ro p ria te in a clo se ca se ” s im ilar to Jon es ’s); U nited Sta tes v. C urry, 53 8 F .3d 71 8, 73 0 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. St e ve ns , 380 F.3d 102 1, 1025 ( 7th Cir. 2004). N ext, co unselo bser ve that J ones does notwish t o w i thdraw his condi ti onalgui l ty p lea . T h u s c ou n se l righ tly om it a n y d isc u ss ion of th e p lea ’s v alid ity . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox , 287 F.3d 667( 7th Cir. 2002). Fi nal l y, co unselquesti on wh etherJ ones co uld ar gue that hi s s entence was proce du ra l l y fl aw ed oro ther w i se unreas onabl e. But, as co unselr eco gni ze, the dist ri ct c o ur tc a l c ul a t e d the r a ng e c o r r e c t l y, c o ns i de r e d the s e nt e nc i ngf a c t o r s l i s t e d in 1 8 U. S . C.N o. 09
- 2708 Page 4

§ 35 53 ( a) , a nd a dequa te l y e xpl aine d i ts r ea so ns f o ri m po singa s en te nc e 9 m o nths b el o w the b ot to m of th e a d vis or y ra n ge . See G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U .S. 38 (20 07 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Turn er, 569 F.3d 63 7, 64 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ), cert. denied , 130 S. C t. 65 4 (2 00 9). W e w ou ld presum e that a se ntence bel ow the co rr ectly c al cul ate d gui del i nes r ange i s no t unreas onabl y hi gh, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 5 98 F . 3d 34 0, 3 45 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( co l l ec ting case s) , and nei therco unselnorwe have found a bas i s t o setas i de that presum pti on her e. A ccor dingl y, we GR AN T c o un s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi thd r a w a nd DI SMI SS Jones’s ap p ea l.