FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 29, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13002 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 3 7 - C R - 1 - S P M- AK U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e ,

v ersu s J O A Q U I N G O M E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 29, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J o a q u in G o m e s , ar e g is te r e d s e x - o f f e n d e rin F lo r id a , w a s s e rv in g as ta te p r o b a tio n te rm a t th e tim e h e c o m m itte d th e f e d e r a l c r im e s a t is s u e in th is c a s e . G o m e s ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s im p o s e d a f te raju ry f

o u n d h im g u ilty of po ss es si ng chi l d p orno graphy, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 25 2A (a )( 5)(B ); r e c e i vi ng c hi l d pornogr aphy , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2252( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ; a nd p r o d u c in g c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 1 ( a ) . G o m e s f ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s ( 1 ) s ta te m e n ts h e m a d e d u r in g a n in te rv ie w o u ts id e o f h is h o u s e w ith f e de r a l a ge nt s , a f

t e rhe r e que s t e d a n a tt orne y a nd w i thoutha vi ng be e n gi ve n the w arni ng s r equi re d b y M i rand a v. A ri zona, 38 4 U . S . 43 6, 86 S . C t . 16 02 (196 6), an d (2 ) ev i d en ce su b seq u en t l y sei zed fro m h i s h o m e p u rsu an tt o a w arran t l ess s e a r c h. S e c ond, G om e s c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n a dm i tt i ng the e x p e rt te s tim o n yo f

M a r ily n M . B a rn e s , b e c au s e th e c o u rt im p r o p e r lylim ite d v o ir di r e i nt o the da t as upport i ng B a rne s ’ s opi ni on, a nd be c aus e both B a rne s a nd the evi dence s he re l i ed up on w er e unrel i abl e. T hi rd, G om es m ai nt ai ns thatthe di stri ct c o u rt e rr e d b y a llo w in g O p h e liaL . J a k o b s e n , G o m e s ’s f o rm e rs te p - d au g h te r , to t e s t i f y be c aus e he rt e s t i m ony w a s c ondi t i one d on a nothe rpe r s on a l s o t e s t i f y i ng, a nd tha tpe r s on di d nott e s t i f y . G om e s a l s o ur ge s tha the rt e s t i m ony s houl d ha ve been excl ud ed un der F eder al R ul es of E vi dence 402 and 4 03 because i tw as3

i rrel ev an tan d i t s p ro b at i v e v al u e w as o u tw ei g h ed b y u n fai r p rej u d i ce. F i n al l y, G o m e s b e lie v e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d b e c au s e it s h o u ld h a v e im p o s e d h is s e n te n c e s to ru n c o n c u rr e n tlyw ith h is u n d is c h a r g e d s ta te s e n te n c e , p u r s u a n t to U. S . S . G. § 5 G1 . 3 ( b ) . B a s e d o n ar e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d a n d th e p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f s , we d i scern n o rev ersi b l e erro rs an d A F F IR M G o m es’ s co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces. I . B AC KG RO UN D I n M a r c h 2006, the F B I r e c e i ve d i nf orm a t i on s ugge s t i ng tha tG om e s m i ght be i nvol ve d w i th c hi l d pornogr aphy be c aus e hi s na m e appe a r e d i n ada t aba s e of p e r s o n s w h o h a d u s e d c r e d it c a r d s to a c c e s s in te rn e t s ite s c o n ta in in g c h ild po rnog raph y. S t ephen W . A m os and W al l ac e A dam s, spec i al agent s w i th the F B I, an d M ar kM o rg an , a co m p u ter e x am in erfr o m th e L ev y C o u n ty, F lo rid a, S h er iff’s O ff i ce , w entt o G om es ’ s r es i dence and w ai t ed for hi m t o arr i ve. T he agent s knew tha tG om e s w a s s e rvi ng at e rm of s t a t e pr oba t i on f

orac onvi c t i on of

l e w d a nd l as ci vi ou s a ss aul ton a m i no r. W hen G om es arri ved, the agent s app roac hed h i m at a l ocked fence e ncl osi ng tw o tra i l erho m es on the prop erty. T he agent s then i nform ed G om es of thei r i dent i t i es and t ol d G om es thatthey w ant ed t o i nt ervi ew h im r e g a r d in g th e irs u s p ic io n s th a t h e h a d im a g e s o f c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y o n h is c o m p u te r . G o m e s d e n ie d h e w a s in v o lv e d in c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y .4

T he a ge nt s a s ke d G om e s f orhi s c ons e ntt o s e a r c h hi s c om put e r , w hi c h he r e f us e d. A r ound thi s t i m e dur i ng the i nt e rvi e w , G om e s s t a t e d i n s ubs t a nc e tha the

“ m i ghtw a ntt o c a l l a n a tt orne y . ” R 2 a t52. A ge ntA m os the n s a i d he w a s s t oppi ng the i nt e rvi e w a nd w oul d nota s k a ny m or e que s t i ons , buttha the w oul d be cont ac t i ng G om es ’ s probat i on offi ce r, M i ke H i nson , t o n ot i fyhi m thatG om es had c ha nge d hi s j ob w i thoutnot i f y i ng the pr oba t i on of

f i c e . G om e s be c a m e ups e ta nd s a i d, “ D on’ tc a l l hi m . H e ’ l l putm e i n j a i l . ” I d. A ge ntA m os t ol d G om e s tha the w as ob l i gat ed t o con t ac tO ff i ce r H i nson “ for the pu rpose of e xp l ai ni ng w hathad tr a n s p ir e d a t th e r e s id e n c e d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f th e in te rv ie w .” I d . a t 3 4 - 3 5 . G om e s a ga i n be gge d hi m nott o c ont a c tO f f i c e rH i ns on be c aus e he f e a r e d be i ng a rr e s te d . A t th a t p o in t, G o m e s in f o rm e d th e a g e n ts th a t h e h a d im a g e s o f c h ild pornogr aphy on hi s c om put e r . I d. a t44. D ur i ng A ge ntA m os ’ s t e l e phone c o n v e r s a tio n w ith O f

f ic e rH in s o n , G o m e s in d ic a te d th a t h e h a d “ato n o f it in the r e . ” I d. a t52. A ge ntA m os the n t ol d G om e s tha the w a s notunde ra rr e s t , but th a t G o m e s w a s n o t f

r e e to e n te rh is h o m e . I d . a t 4 5 . W hi l e w a i t i ng f

orO f f i c e rH i ns on t o a rr i ve , G om e s w a s ke ptout s i de of the f e n c e o f h is r e s id e n c e b e c au s e th e a g e n ts f e a r e d th a t h e w o u ldd e s tr o y e v id e n c e if h e w e r e a llo w e d in s id e . I d . a t 3 6 . W h e n O f f ic e rH in s o n a rr iv e d , th e a g e n ts al l ow ed O ff

i ce r H i nt on t o i nt ervi ew G om es al on e. O ff i ce r H i nson kn ew G om es5

ha d r e que s t e d a n a tt orne y , a nd, ne ve rthe l e s s , O f f i c e rH i ns on a s ke d G om e s i f he w o u ld f in d a n y th in g in th e h o u s e if h e s e a r c h e d it. I d . a t 1 0 8 - 0 9 . G o m e s to ld O f f ic e rH in s o n th a t h e w o u ld f in d s o m e “k id d y p o rn ” if th e h o m e w e r e s e a r c h e d . Id. at10 6. G om es t oo k O ff i ce r H i nson and O ff

i ce r M organ i nt o the re si dence, l ed the m t o the be dr oom , pul l e d outaba g c ont a i ni ng c om pa c tdi s c s f r om unde rthe b e d , a n d g a v e th e m to O f f ic e rH in s o n . O f

f ic e rM o r g a n p u t o n e o f

th e d is c s in h is com pu t erand o pened fi l es thatappeare d t o b e c hi l d p orno graphy. G om es w as then a rr e s te d f

o rv io la tin g th e te rm s o f h is p r o b a tio n . T h r o u g h as u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h o f G o m e s ’s c o m p u te r , p u r s u a n t to aw a rr a n t, O ff i ce r M organ fou nd i m ages of chi l d p orno graphy, and d i sc ov er ed thatsom e f i l es h a d b e e n v ie w e d o n th e in te rn e t a n d s a v e dto th e h a r d d r iv e . 6 0 1 im a g e s in G om e s ’ s pos s e s s i on m a t c he d thos e i n the D e pa rtm e ntof J us t i c e ’ s da t aba s e of know n c hi l d pornogr aphy . I n a ddi t i on, O f f i c e rM or ga n l oc a t e d thous a nds of su sp ec ted files a n d o v er5 0 0 v id eo s b eliev ed to b e c h il d p o rn o g rap h y o n G o m es ’s d is c s a n d c o m p u te r . G o m e s ’s d ig ita l c a m e r ac o n ta in e d th r e e im a g e s a n d th e d a ta f r o m o th e rd e le te d im a g e s . O f f ic e rM o r g an tr a c k e d o n e im a g e f r o m th e c a m e r ato the com pactdi sc s thathad com e f rom un der G om es ’ s bed, and fi ve other i m ages on the di sc s c am e f

rom the sa m e c am er a.Go me s’ s stateprob atio n c ondition s do not a pp e ar in there cord , but t

hisprovisi on

of his 1 stateprob atio n isno t challeng e d, and Go me s re ferenc e s it in bo th his moti on to suppre ss a

nd his 6 A fed eral g ran d j u ry i n d i ct ed G o m es fo r (1 ) p o ssessi n g ch i l d p o rn o g rap h y, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 25 2A (a )( 5)(B ) and (b)( 2), (“ C ou ntO ne”) ; ( 2) r e c e i vi ng c hi l d pornogr aphy , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2252A ( a ) ( 2) ( B ) a nd ( b) ( 1) , ( “ C ountT w o” ) ; a nd ( 3) pr oduc i ng c hi l d pornogr aphy , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 25 1(a) and (e) , (“ C ou ntT hree ”) . R 1-26 at1-3. B ef ore tri al , G om es f i l e d am ot i on t o s uppr e s s s t a t e m e nt s a nd e vi de nc e , a r gui ng tha tthe s t a t e m e nt s a nd e v id e n c e w e r e o b ta in e d in v io la tio n o f th e F o u rth , F if

th , a n d S ix th A m e n d m e n ts to the U . S . C ons t i tut i on a nd F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 41. G om e s a r gue d, i nt e ra l i a , tha thi s c onf

e s s i on t o pos s e s s i ng c hi l d pornogr aphy w a s ar e s ul tof cont i nu ed i nt errogat i on fol l ow i ng hi s r equestfor an att orney and thatthe evi dence r e s u ltin g f

r o m th e s e a r c h o f

h is h o m e a n d c o m p u te r s w a s th e f ru it o f th o s e ille g a lly ob t ai ned st at em ent s. In the m ot i on , G om es se tou tthathe had p re vi ou sl y bee n se nt ence d t o tw o years of com m un i ty c on trol fol l ow ed by 13 ye ar s of s ex offender pr oba t i on, a nd hi s c ondi t i ons of pr oba t i on pr ovi de d tha tG om e s , “ w i l l notow n, vi ew or po ss es s s exual l y e xp l i ci tm at er i al or st i m ul at i ng vi sual or audi t ory m at er i al by m eans i ncl ud i ng t el epho ne, el ec troni c m edi a, com pu t erprog ra m s or c om pu t er s e rvi c e s ” a nd tha the “ w i l l s ubm i tt o w a rr a nt l e s s s e a r c h by y ourof f i c e rof y our pers on , re si dence or vehi cl e . . . [. ] ” R 1-17 at3 n . 4. T he go vernm entre spon ded 1appellatebrief. SeeR1-17 at 3 n.4; Appellant’s B r. at 20 n.1. 7 tha tG om e s ’ s i ni t i a l c onf e s s i on s houl d notbe a na l y z e d unde rM i r a ndabe c aus e the se tt in g w as n o n -c u sto d ial. T h e g o v ern m en t also ar g u ed th at th e s ea rc h o f G o m es ’s hom e w a s pr ope rbe c aus e i tw a s ba s e d upon O f f i c e rH i ns on’ s r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on tha tG om e s pos s e s s e d c hi l d pornogr aphy , s uc h tha tthe e vi de nc e s e i z e d w a s not s u b je c t to s u p p r e s s io n . W i thouthol di ng a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng, the c ourtde ni e d G om e s ’ s m ot i on, fi rs tconcl ud i ng thatG om es ’ s s t at em ent s w er e notthe prod uctof cust od i al i nt e rr oga t i on be c aus e the i nt e rvi e w t ook pl a c e a tG om e s ’ s hom e a nd c e a s e d upon h is r e q u e s t f

o ra n a tto rn e y . R 1 - 2 1 a t 2 n .1 . T h e c o u rt f r a m e d th e is s u e r e la tin g to the evi dence re sul t i ng fr om the se ar ch of hi s hom e and com pu t eras , “ w hether a f e d e r a l p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e rin th e s a m e c ir c u m s ta n c e s w o u ld h a v e h a d th e r ig h t to c onduc tthe w a rr a nt l e s s e ntry i nt o a nd s e a r c h of D e f e nda nt ’ s hom e . ” I d. a t4. T he c o u rt c o n s id e r e d th a t ( 1 ) th e F B I a g e n ts w e r e a w a r e th a t G o m e s w a s in v o lv e d in do w nl oadi ng chi l d p orno graphy because hi s nam e app eare d i n thei r dat abas e; ( 2) hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory r e ve a l e d tha the w a s on s t a t e pr oba t i on f orac onvi c t i on of l e w d a nd l a s c i vi ous a s s aul ton ac hi l d unde r16; ( 3) he a dm i tt i ng t ouc hi ng hi s s t e pd au g h te r ’s g e n ita ls ; ( 4 ) h e a d m itte d o b s e rv in g p o rn o g r ap h ic “p o p - u p s ” o n h is com pu t er ; and (5) he vo l un t ee re d t o coo pera t e w i th the agent s once they a dv i se d8

hi m thathi s probat i on offi ce r w as t o b e c on t ac t ed. Id. at5. T he courtconcl ud ed th a t th e s e f

a c to r s g a v e th e a g e n ts a n d p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rr e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n to c o n d u c t th e w a rr a n tle s s s e a r c h o f G o m e s ’s r e s id e n c e a n d c o m p u te r . I d . a t 4 - 6 . G om e s a l s o f

i l e d am ot i on i n l i m i ne , a r gui ng tha tthe e xpe rtt e s t i m ony of M a r ily n M . B a rn e s s h o u ld b e e x c lu d e d f r o m e v id e n c e . R 1 - 3 1 . B a rn e s w a s to t es t i fythata f

em al e s ubj ec ti n fi ve ph ot og raph s s ei ze d from G om es ’ s hom e w as betw ee n 1 1 and 16 ye ar s ol d, base d u po n h ergeni t al i a. Id. at1. G om es ar gu ed thati tw as un l i kel y thata pho t og raph of ext ernal fe m al e geni t al i a c ou l d sup po rt B arnes’ s opi ni on w i thi n a re as on abl e degree of m edi ca l ce rt ai nty thatthe subj ec t w a s a n a dol e s c e ntm i nor . I d. T he gove rnm e ntoppos e d G om e s ’ s m ot i on, a r gui ng thatB arnes’ s t es t i m on y w as base d o n ext ensi ve m edi ca l tra i ni ng and cl i ni ca l e xpe r i e nc e , a nd i ta tt a c he d B a rne s ’ s r e s um e , w hi c h s e touthe re xpe r i e nc e a nd q u a lif ic a tio n s . T h e c o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n , f in d in g th a t B a rn e s ’s te s tim o n y w o u ld be a dm i s s i bl e t o a s s i s tthe j ury i n m a ki ng i t s de c i s i on. R 1- 34. G o m es elec ted to p ro ce ed to a ju ry trial. O n cr o ss -e x am in atio n b y G o m es ’s c ouns e l , A ge ntA m os t e s t i f i e d a s f ol l ow s . W hi l e A ge ntA m os w a s que s t i oni ng G om e s , G om e s i ndi c a t e d tha the s houl d t a l k t o an a tt orne y , a nd A ge ntA m os re peat edl y i nstruct ed hi m thatno m ore quest i on s w ou l d b e a sked, the i nt ervi ew w as concl ud ed, and any st at em ent s m ade c ou l d b e use d agai nsthi m i n cou rt . R 2 at9

4 3 -4 4 . A g en t A m o s th en in d icated to G o m es th at h e w as g o in g to co n tact G o m es ’s p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e r , a n d G o m e s “d r o p p e d to h is kn e e s ,” “c r ie d o u t f o rJ e s u s ,” pl ea ded for A gentA m os no tt o cal l , and i nd i ca t ed thathe w ou l d coo pera t e. Id. at 4 4 . A tth atp o i n t , A g en tA m o s t o l d G o m es n o tt o m ak e an y st at em en t s b ecau se they c ou l d b e use d agai nsthi m i n cou rt . G om es then t ol d A gentA m os thathe had im a g e s o f

c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y o n h is c o m p u te r . T he go vernm entthen cal l ed O ff i ce r M organ t o t es t i fy . O ff i ce r M organ t es t i fi ed thathe ac com pani ed A gentA m os and A gentT ay l or t o G om es ’ s r es i dence, and they w ai t ed ou t si de of the gat e bec ause G om es w as no tho m e w hen they a rr i ve d. I d. a t50- 51. A f t e rG om e s r e turne d a nd gotoutof hi s truc k, M or ga n a nd th e a g e n ts ap p r o a c h e d h im , a n d A g e n t A m o s b e g a n to in te rv ie w G o m e s . I d . a t 5 1 . A gentA m os as ked G om es for c on se ntt o l oo k athi s c om pu t er s, and G om es i ndi c a t e d tha the m i ghtw a ntt o c a l l a n a tt orne y . I d. a t52. W he n O f f i c e rH i ns on arri v ed , G o m es’ s p ro b at i o n o ffi cer, O ffi cer H i n so n ask ed O ffi cer M o rg an t o assi st hi m i n v i ew i ng com pu t erm at er i al i n G om es ’ s r es i dence. Id. at53 . A ft era bri ef s e a r c h o f G o m e s ’s h o m e a n d c o m p u te r , O f f ic e rH in s o n a rr e s te d G o m e s . I d . a t 5 5 . C er tain it em s w er e s eize d fr o m G o m es ’s re sid en ce p u rs u an t t o O ff ier H in so n ’s r e q u e s t. I d . S u b s e q u e n tly , O f f ic e rM o r g a n w a s in v o lv e d in o b ta in in g as ta te se ar ch w arrantt o searc h G om es ’ s hom e. Id. T he i t em s s ei ze d p ursuantt o that10

se ar ch i ncl ud ed three deskt op com pu t er s, 12 hard dri ves, a di gi t al ca m er a, a w eb c a m e r a , ap r in te r , a n d 4 6 c o m p a c t d is c s . I d . a t 5 8 . T he gove rnm e ntthe n c a l l e d O f f i c e rH i ns on, w ho t e s t i f

i e d tha tA ge ntA m os c ont a c t e d hi m a nd r e que s t e d i nf orm a t i on aboutG om e s be c aus e A ge ntA m os w ant ed t o i nt ervi ew G om es . A gentA m os cont ac t ed hi m agai n, i nd i ca t i ng that G o m e s h a d m a d e as ta te m e n t, a n d O f f ic e rH in s o n w e n t to G o m e s ’s h o m e to cond ucta probat i on se ar ch. Id. at10 6. W hen O ff i ce r H i nson arri ved, he t al ked w ith A g e n t A m o s , w h o g a v e h im s o m e b a c k g r o u n d . H in s o n w a s a w a r e th a t a s u b s e q u e n ts e a r c h warr a n twa s o b t a i n e d t o s e i z e th e e v i d e n c e . I d . a t1 0 8 . On cr oss- exam i nat i on , O ff

i ce r H i nson t es t i fi ed thathe kn ew G om es had request ed an a tto rn e y , a n d , n o tw ith s ta n d in g th a t, h e a s k e d G o m e s if h e w o u ld f

in d a n y th in g in th e h o u s e if

h e s e a r c h e d it. I d . a t 1 0 8 - 0 9 . N ext , the go vernm entca l l ed O ph el i a L . Jako bsen, w ho t es t i fi ed thather m o th e r , S a n d r aK . N ils e n , m a rr ie d G o m e s in N o v e m b e r2 0 0 5 . I d . a t 1 0 9 - 1 1 . G om es obj ec t ed t o h ert es t i m on y bas ed on R ul e 403 . T he go vernm entre spon ded th a t h e rte s tim o n y w a s f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

e s tab lis h in g th a t G o m e s h a d a c c e s s to y o u n g g ir ls o f

w h o m to ta k e th e p h o to g r ap h s . T h e c o u rt o v e rru le d th e o b je c tio n . J a kobs e n r e s um e d he rt e s t i m ony a nd i ndi c a t e d tha ts he ha d as i s t e r , B r i tt a ny , w ho w ou l d h ave been 13 year s ol d i n 2 00 5, atthe t i m e the pi ctures w er e t aken. Id. at11

113. S he s t a t e d tha ts he a nd B r i tt a ny ha d s t a y e d a tG om e s ’ s hous e , a nd B r i tt a ny had b ee n there al on e w i th G om es . Id. S he al so t es t i fi ed thatB ri tt any had other fr ien d s w h o w er e ap p ro x im ately th e s am e a g e a n d w h o h ad sp en t t im e a t G o m es ’s r e s id e n c e . I d . a t 1 1 3 - 1 4 . T he gove rnm e ntthe n c a l l e d N i l s e n, G om e s ’ s e x- w i f e , w ho t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he had k no w n G om es si nce Jul y 200 5, had m arri ed hi m i n N ov em ber 200 5, and h ad be e n t o hi s tr a i l e r . S he a nd B r i tt a ny ha d s t a y e d a tG om e s ’ s r e s i de nc e onc e , a nd B ri tt any had fr i ends ar ou nd her ow n age. Id. at11 6-17 . O ff i ce rs had sho w n h er p ic tu r e s ta k e n f

r o m G o m e s ’s c a m e r a , o n e o f w h ic h w a s ap ic tu r e o f

a“little g ir l,” b u tN i l sen d i d n o tk n o w th e i d en t i ty o f th e g i rl . Id . at1 1 8 -1 9 . O n cro ssexam i nat i on , N i l se n t es t i fi ed thatB ri tt any had on l y bee n al on e w i th G om es w hen N i l se n h ad a heartatt ac k and thatB ri tt any’ s f ri ends had v ery s el do m been at G om e s ’ s r e s i de nc e . I d. a t119- 20. A f t e rN i l s e n’ s t e s t i m ony , the gove rnm e nt in d ic a te d th a t it w o u ld c a ll B r itta n y to te s tif y . I d . a t 1 2 1 . Inst ea d, the go vernm entca l l ed M ar i l yn M . B arnes, and G om es re qu es t ed voi rdi r e t o e s t abl i s h he re xpe rt i s e , w hi c h the gove rnm e ntgr a nt e d. O ut s i de the p resen ce o f th e j u ry, sh e t est i fi ed th atsh e h ad b een an ad v an ced reg i st ered n u rse pr a c t i t i one rw i th the U ni ve r s i ty of F l or i daC hi l d P r ot e c t i on T e a m f ora l m os t12 y e a r s . S h e h a d am a s te r ’s d e g r e e in p e d ia tr ic n u r s in g a n d h a d w o rk e d th e m a jo r ity12

o f h e rc a r e e rin p e d ia tr ic s . S h e h a d b e e n to m u ltip le c o n f e r e n c e s r e la tin g to c h ild s e x u a l ab u s e a n d c h ild ab u s e a n d s p o k e n a t ac o n f e r e n c e o n c h ild s e x u a l ab u s e . S he had three art i cl es pu bl i shed on t aki ng hi st ori es fr om abused or negl ec t ed chi l dren. S he had seen over 300 chi l dren a y ear, abou ton e- hal f of w ho m w er e s e e n f ors e xua l abus e , and s he ha d s e e n at ot a l of appr oxi m a t e l y 3, 600 c hi l dr e n f or abuse or negl ec t . S he had b ee n q ual i fi ed as an experti n chi l d sexual and p hysi ca l abuse c as es and h ad appeare d as an exp erti n 1 05 ca se s. S he had p re vi ou sl y bee n a s ke d t o us e he re xpe rt i s e i n a dol e s c e ntgr ow th a nd de ve l opm e ntt o e xa m i ne phot ogr aphs f

orl a w e nf

or c e m e ntpurpos e s , a nd s he ha d r e nde r e d opi ni ons r e g a r d in g th e a g e o f

c h ild r e n in p h o to g r ap h s . G om es cont i nu ed hi s voi r di re , and B arnes t es t i fi ed thatshe had never been qu al i fi ed as an adol es ce ntgrow th and devel op m entexpertt o render an opini on as t o the age of a per son b as ed sol el y on thei r geni t al i a. S he had b ee n asked t o render a n opi ni on a s t o the a ge of ac hi l d ba s e d on phot ogr aphs i n aboutf ourorf i ve i nve s t i ga t i ons , a nd s he r e nde r e d a n opi ni on ba s e d on the ge ni t a l i aa l one i n tw o or thr e e of thos e . B a rne s t e s t i f

i e d r e ga r di ng the m e thods us e d f orde t e rm i ni ng a ge b a s e d o n g e n ita lia . B a rn e s a ls o te s tif ie d th a t th e p ic tu r e s s h e w a s a s k e d to v ie w in thi s c as e w er e “ no tthe cl eare stph ot os I e ver s aw , ” butshow ed the geni t al stru ctu res. Id . at1 2 8 . S h e i n d i cat ed th ato n e o f th e p h o t o s i n th e p resen tcase13

show ed the di stri bu t i on of pu bi c hai r f ai rl y c l earl y, and the others ar e “ i ff y. ” I d. at 129. T he di s tr i c tc ourts us t a i ne d obj e c t i ons t o G om e s ’ s c ont i nue d que s t i oni ng r e ga r di ng the c l a r i ty of

the pi c tur e s B a rne s e xa m i ne d f orthi s c a s e . T he j udge s t a t e d, “ C ouns e l , I thi nk w e ha ve gott e n be y ond the a dm i s s i bi l i ty a nd w e a r e now in th e a r e ao f

c r e d ib ility ,” a n d th a t “it’s n o t c o rr e c t v o ird ir e . Y o u c a n d o a ll th is on c r os s - e xa m i na t i on. ” I d. B a rne s c ont i nue d t o t e s t i f y tha tthe pr i nc i pl e s a nd m e thods s he us e d w e r e r e l i abl e a nd ha d be e n s ubj e c t e d t o pe e rr e vi e w . W hi l e s he had n everpu bl i shed on the m etho ds up on w hi ch she r el i ed, she i dent i fi ed art i cl es a n d te x tb o o k s o n th e s u b je c t. O n di r e c t - e xa m i na t i on i n f r ontof the j ury , B a rne s r e pe a t e d he rqua l i f i c a t i ons a nd de s c r i be d how s he de t e rm i ne s ac hi l d’ s a ge f r om aphot ogr aph. T he gove rnm e ntm ove d t o a dm i tB a rne s a s a n e xpe rti n a dol e s c e ntgr ow th a nd devel op m ent , G om es obj ec t ed, and the courtov errul ed the obj ec t i on and adm i tt ed h e ra s a n e x p e rt. I d . a t 1 3 8 . B a rn e s s ta te d th a t th e p h o to g r ap h s p r o v id e d h e rw ith s u f f ic ie n t in f o rm a tio n to r e n d e rh e ro p in io n a n d te s tif ie dth a t “th is c h ild is c e rta in ly unde rthe a ge of

18, a nd ve ry l i ke l y unde rthe a ge of 16, a nd tha t ’ s e ve n a l l ow i ng f o rs o m e o u tlie r s . I b e lie v e th a t th e c h ild is p r o b ab ly1 4 o ry o u n g e r .” I d . a t 1 4 2 . G om e s obj e c t e d t o he rt e s t i m ony unde rR ul e 403, a nd the c ourtove rrul e d the o b je c tio n .14

O n cross -e xam i nat i on , B arnes t es t i fi ed re gardi ng the age of pub erty onset a nd de ve l opm e nt a l va r i a t i ons . S he t e s t i f i e d tha tthe r e w a s “ s om e bl urr i ne s s ” i n the phot ogr aphs s he a na l y z e d. I d. a t144. O n r e - di r e c t , s he t e s t i f i e d tha the ropi ni on to o kin to a c c o u n t th e d e v e lo p m e n ta l v a r ia tio n s ab o u t w h ic h th e d e f e n s e a s k e d . T he gove rnm e nta ga i n i ndi c a t e d tha ti ti nt e nde d t o c a l l B r i tt a ny the ne xtda y , but di d notc a l l a ny a ddi t i ona l w i tne s s e s the ne xtda y . T he j ury f ound G om e s gui l ty on a ll th r e e c o u n ts o f

th e in d ic tm e n t. T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e pr e pa r e d apr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e port( “ P S I ” ) a nd g ro u p ed all th re e c o u n ts to g eth er , p u rs u an t t o U .S .S .G . § 3 D 1 .2 (2 0 0 6 ). G o m es ’s base offe nse l evel w as 18 , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 G 2. 2. T he prob at i on offi ce r a d d e d 2 3 l e v e l s f

o rv a r i o u s s p e c i f

i c o f f e n s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 2 G 2. 2(b)(2) throu gh (b)( 7). O ne of the spec i fi c off ense char ac t er i st i cs , for w hi ch G o m e s r e c e iv e d af

iv e - le v e l in c r e a s e , w a s th a t h e “e n g a g e d in ap a tte rn o f a c tiv ity i n v o l v i n g th e s e x u a l ab u s e o re x p l o i t a t i o n o f am i n o r , ” p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 5) . T he e nha nc e m e nt s r a i s e d G om e s ’ s t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l t o 41. T he p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e rd e s c r ib e d G o m e s ’s c r im in a l h is to ry a n d d e ta ile d a2 0 0 1 s ta te c o n v ic tio n o n 1 c o u n t o f le w d a n d la s c iv io u s a s s au lt o n ac h ild u n d e rth e a g e o f 1 6 . F ortha tc r i m e he w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 2 y e ar s of c om m uni ty c ontr ol t o be f ol l ow e d by 1 3 y e a r s o f

s e x o f f e n d e rp r o b a tio n . I n M a y 2 0 0 6 , h e p le d g u iltyto v io la tin g h is15

com m un i ty c on trol by po ss es si ng chi l d p orno graphy, hi s t erm of supervi si on w as r e voke d, a nd he w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 10 y e a r s of i m pr i s onm e ntw i th c r e di tf or474 days se rved. B as ed on G om es ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory, hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory w as I I I . H i s a dj us t e d of

f e ns e l e ve l of

41 a nd c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of I I I y i e l de d a gu i del i ne rang e of 360 m on ths t o l i fe i m pri sonm ent , bu tbecause the st atut ory m a x im u m f

o rC o u n t T h r e e w a s 6 0 0 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t, p u r s u a n t to 5 G 1 .1 ( c ) ( 1 ) , h is g u id e lin e r a n g e b e c a m e 3 6 0 to 6 0 0 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, G om e s a r gue d tha the ha d 61 t o 91 m onths of u n d is c h a r g e d p r is o n tim e a n d h is p r e s e n t s e n te n c e s h o u ld b e im p o s e d c o n c u rr e n tly wi th th a tu n d i s c h a r g e d t i m e o rr e d u c e d b y th a tt i m e , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 5 G1 . 3 ( b ) . T h e c o u rtd i s a g r e e d , f i n d i n g th a ti th a d d i s c r e t i o n , u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 5 G 1 .3 ( c ) , to o r d e rth a t G o m e s ’s s e n te n c e ru n c o n s e c u tiv e lyw ith h is undi s c ha r ge d s t a t e s e nt e nc e be c aus e he c om m i tt e d the i ns t a ntof f e ns e w hi l e on prob at i on for hi s s t at e c on vi ct i on . R 4 at10 . T he courti nd i ca t ed thati thad c ons i de r e d the f

a c t or s i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne r a nge , a nd the po l i cyst at em ent s i ss ued b y the S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on . T he courtse nt ence d G om e s t o 240 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nta s t o C ountO ne , 480 m onths a s t o C ount T w o, a nd 600 m onths a s t o C ountT hr e e , a l l t o run c onc urr e nt l y , a nd or de r e d the se nt ence t o run consec ut i vel y t o any exi st i ng st at e s ent ence . W hen G om es w as16

a s k e d i f h e h a d a n y o b

j e c t i o n s t o th e c o u rt ’ s f

i n d i n g s o f

f a c to rc o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w, hi s c ou nsel st at ed, “ [n] on e other than p re vi ou sl y r ai se d. ” I d. at13 -14. T hi s app ea l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . T h e D i stri ctC o u rtP ro p erl y D en i ed G o m es’ s M o t i o n t o S u p p ress

“ R evi ew of a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a m ot i on t o sup pres s i s am i xed q u e s tio n o f

la w a n d f

a c t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . D e la n c y , 5 0 2 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 07 ). “ [I ] n revi ew i ng a deni al of a m ot i on t o sup pres s, w e r evi ew the ent i re r e c or d, i nc l udi ng tr i a l t e s t i m ony . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N e w s om e , 475 F . 3d 1221, 12 24 (11th C i r. ) ( per c uri am ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 8 S . C t . 21 8 (20 07 ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. P ears on , 44 8 F . 2d 12 07 , 12 10 (5th C i r. 19 71 ) ( “ E vi dence adduced attri al m aybe consi dere d even tho ug h the evi dence on the m ot i on t o sup pres s w as i nsuffi ci entt o j ust i fythe se ar ch. ”) . W e c on si der the evi dence broug htforth attri al in d e te rm in in g w h e th e rth e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to s u p p r e s s c o n s titu te s r e v e r s ib le e rr or . N e w s om e , 475 F . 3d a t1224; P e a r s on, 448 F . 2d a t1210. “ W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f

i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr or [ , ] ” c ons trui ng the e vi de nc e i n the li g h t m o st fa v o rab le to th e p ar ty th at p re v ailed in th e d istrict co u rt, an d “[w ]e re vi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s i nt erpret at i on and app l i ca t i on of the l aw de no vo . ” D e la n c y , 5 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 4 .17

1. G om es ’ s P re -A rr es tS t at em ent s W er e P roperl y A dm i tt ed atT ri al T h e p r o s e c u tio n c a n n o t in tr o d u c e ad e f e n d a n t’s s ta te m e n ts m a d e in r e s p o n s e to c u s to d ia l in te rr o g a tio n w ith o u t f ir s t in f o rm in g th e d e f

e n d a n t o f h is ri gh t s und erM i rand a. M i rand a, 38 4 U . S . at44 4, 47 6, 86 S . C t . at16 12 , 16 29 . In U n ite d S ta te s v . C a s tr o , w e h e ld th a t b e f o r e M ir a n d aw a rn in g s a r e r e q u ir e d , “it m us tbe e s t abl i s he d tha tthe s ubj e c tw a s both ‘ i n c us t ody ’ a nd unde r‘ i nt e rr oga t i on’ by pol i c e of

f i c e r s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a s tr o, 723 F . 2d 1527, 1530 ( 11th C i r . 1984) (percuri am ). T o d et erm i ne w hether asuspec ti s “ i n cust od y” the S up re m e C ou rt has s etou ttw o d i st i ncti nq ui ri es . “ [F ] i rs t , w hatw er e the ci rc um st ance s s urr oundi ng the i nt e rr oga t i on; a nd s e c ond, gi ve n thos e c i r c um s t a nc e s , w oul d a r e a s onabl e pe r s on ha ve f e l the ors he w a s nota tl i be rtyt o t e rm i na t e the i nt e rr oga t i on a nd l e a ve . ” T hom ps on v. K e ohane , 516 U . S . 99, 112, 116 S . C t . 457, 46 5 (19 95 ) ( footno t e om i tt ed). T he courtm ustthen d et erm i ne w hether the suspec t w a s s ubj e c t e d t o a“ f

orm a l a rr e s torr e s tr a i nton f r e e dom of

m ove m e ntof

the d e g r e e a s s o c ia te d w ith af o rm a l a rr e s t.” I d . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . W e ha ve a c know l e dge d tha t“ c ourt s a r e m uc h l e s s l i ke l y t o f i nd the ci rc um st ance s c ust od i al w hen the i nt errogat i on occurs i n fam i l i aror atl ea stneutra l s urr oundi ngs , s uc h a s the s us pe c t ’ s hom e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r ow n, 441 F . 3d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 4 8 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t a t i o n a n d a l t e r a t i o n o mi tt e d ) , c e rt . d e n i e d , 1 2 7 S.18

C t . 11 49 (200 7); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. N ew t on , 36 9 F . 3d 65 9, 67 5 (2d C i r. 2004) ( not i ng tha t“ abs e nta n a rr e s t , i nt e rr oga t i on i n the f a m i l i a rs urr oundi ngs of o n e ’s o w n h o m e is g e n e r a llyn o t d e e m e d c u s to d ia l” ) . O th e rr e le v a n t f a c to r s to de t e rm i ne c us t ody i nc l ude w he the rthe s us pe c tw a s phy s i c a l l y r e s tr a i ne d ort ol d he w as un der arr es t . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P hi l l i ps, 81 2 F . 2d 13 55 , 13 62 (11th C i r. 19 87 ) ( per c uri am ) ( concl ud i ng thatsuspec t , w ho w as nei ther arr es t ed no r t ol d that h e w a s u n d e ra rr e s t, w a s “n o t in c u s to d y f o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

M ir a n d a ” ) .

“ U na m bi guous l y a dvi s i ng ade f e nda nttha the i s f

r e e t o l e a ve a nd i s noti n c us t ody

. . . general l y w i l l l ea d t o the concl usi on thatthe defendanti s noti n cust od y . . . . ” B ro w n , 4 4 1 F .3 d at 1 3 4 7 . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h as stated th at an o ff icer ’s suspi ci on s r egar di ng a s uspect“ m aybearup on the cust od y i ss ue i f they are conv ey ed” t o the suspec t , ho w ever , “ [e ] ven a cl ear s t at em entfr om an offi ce r that the pe r s on unde ri nt e rr oga t i on i s apr i m e s us pe c ti s not , i n i t s e l f , di s pos i t i ve of

the c u s to d y is s u e , f

o rs o m e s u s p e c ts a r e f

r e e to c o m e a n d g o u n til th e p o lic e d e c id e to m a ke a n a rr e s t . ” S t a ns bury v. C a l i f orni a , 511 U . S . 318, 325, 114 S . C t . 1526, 1530 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . I n th is c a s e , G o m e s m a d e s e lf - in c r im in a tin g s ta te m e n ts to th e a g e n ts r e ga r di ng hi s pos s e s s i on of c hi l d pornogr aphy w i thoutha vi ng be e n a rr e s t e d a nd n o th av i n g b een i n fo rm ed o f h i s ri g h t s u n d er M i ran d a. T h erefo re, w e m u st19

de t e rm i ne w he the rornotG om e s w a s i n c us t ody a tthe t i m e he m a de the st at em ent s. T he evi dence adduced attri al show s thatG om es w as i nt ervi ew ed ou t si de of a l ocked fence athi s r es i dence – a fam i l i arse tt i ng for G om es – w hi ch w ei gh s a gai nstthe fi nd i ng thathe w as i n cust od y. R 2 at34 ; B row n, 44 1 F . 3d at 1348. G om e s w a s notphy s i c a l l y r e s tr a i ne d i n a ny w a y a nd he w a s nott ol d tha the w a s unde ra rr e s t , w hi c h a r e tw o a ddi t i ona l f a c t or s tha tw e i gh a ga i ns taf i ndi ng of cust od y. S ee general l y R 2 at30 -55; P hi l l i ps, 81 2 F . 2d at13 62 . W hi l e the offi ce rs di d saythatthey s uspect ed G om es of havi ng chi l d p orno graphy on hi s c om pu t er , an o ffi cer’s art i cu l at ed su sp i ci o n s are n o td i sp o si t i v e o f th e i n q u i ry. S t an sb u ry, 51 1 U . S . at32 5, 11 4 S . C t . at15 30 . W e c on cl ud e thatthe offi ce rs ’ st at ed suspi ci on s di d n otre nd erthei r i nt ervi ew w i th G om es cust od i al because, af t er A ge ntA m os s a i d tha the w oul d be c a l l i ng H i ns on, G om e s ’ s pr oba t i on of f i c e r , “ f or the purpos e of

e xpl a i ni ng w ha tha d tr a ns pi r e d a tthe r e s i de nc e dur i ng the c our s e of the i nt ervi ew , ” R 2 at34 -35, G om es begg ed A m os no tt o cal l because he f eare d b e in g a rr e s te d , in d ic a tin g th a t G o m e s d id n o t th in kh e w a s in c u s to d y a t th a t p o in t. Id. at35 . T hen, atsom e poi ntdu ri ng A m os’ s c al l w i th H i nson , G om es vo l un t ee re d tha the pos s e s s e d c hi l d pornogr aphy . G om e s ha d s a i d nothi ng i nc r i m i na t i ng up unt i l thi s poi nt , a nd the r e i s no i ndi c a t i on tha the w a s notf r e e t o e nt e rhi s hom e or t o l e a ve the s c e ne e ve n i f hi s pr oba t i on of

f i c e rw e r e c a l l e d. T he r e f or e , A ge nt20

A m os ’ s s t a t e m e nttha the w a s goi ng t o c a l l G om e s ’ s pr oba t i on of f i c e rc a nnotbe d e e m e d to h a v e r e s tr ic te d G o m e s ’s f r e e d o m o f

m o v e m e n t s u c h th a t G o m e s w a s in c u s to d y w h e n h e m a d e s e lf - in c r im in a tin g s ta te m e n ts . T he t ot a l i ty of

the c i r c um s t a nc e s e s t abl i s he s tha tG om e s w a s noti n c us t ody w hen h e m ade s el f- i ncri m i nat i ng st at em ent s. R ec al l , the agent s pre vent ed G om es f r o m e n te r in g h is h o u s e o n lya f te rh e h a d m a d e s e lf

- in c r im in a tin g s ta te m e n ts re gardi ng hi s posse ss i on of chi l d p orno graphy. T he fa ct s thatthe di stri ctcourt r e lie d u p o n to d e n y G o m e s ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s w e r e in c o n f o rm ityw ith th e f

a c ts es tab li sh ed at trial. A cc o rd in g ly, th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errin d en yin g G o m es ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s h is s ta te m e n ts . 2. T he E vi dence S ei ze d from G om es ’ s H om e W as P roperl y A dm i tt ed F e de r a l l a w gove rns the a dm i s s i on i n f e de r a l c ourtof

e vi de nc e obt a i ne d by s ta te o f f ic e r s . U n ite d S ta te s v . M a le k z a d e h , 8 5 5 F .2 d 1 4 9 2 , 1 4 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . “T h e q u e s tio n w h e th e re v id e n c e o b ta in e d b y s ta te o f f ic e r s a n d u s e d a g a in s t a d e f e n d a n t in af

e d e r a l tr ia l w a s o b ta in e d b y u n r e a s o n ab le s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e is to be j udge d a s i f

the s e a r c h a nd s e i z ur e ha d be e n m a de by f e de r a l of f i c e r s . ” P r e s t on v . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 7 6 U .S . 3 6 4 , 3 6 6 , 8 4 S . C t. 8 8 1 , 8 8 3 ( 1 9 6 4 ) . A p ro b atio n er ’s h o u se m ay b e search ed b ased u p o n reaso n ab l e su sp i ci o n . U n i t ed S t at es v . K n i g h t s, 5 3 4 U .S . 1 1 2 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 S . C t. 5 8 7 , 5 9 2 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . In K ni gh t s, the S up re m e C ou rtGo me s argue s th at th edecision s in Yukn avich a

nd Knightsareno t c ontroll ingbe c a us e 2 F lorida c ourt s h avehe ld t

hat evidenc eob tain ed pursu ant to a se arch b y

a prob atio n o ff

ic er i s admissible only

in a probation revoc ation proce eding , not to prove a new criminal offense . Gomes alsoargue s th at F lorida

law expre ssly

limitsthea

uthority to c onduc t w arrantl e ss s e arch es to prob atio n o ff

ic ers , but h ec ites no a

uthority for t hisprop os iti on . The seargumentsfail b e c a us e Knights establishes that the Four th Amendment allows a se arch of a probationer’ s home for e ither investigatory

or probationary

purposes. Seeg enerally, Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 121, 122 S. Ct . 587. Go me s’ s argument is als o fore c los e d b y B ambergv. Sta

te , 9 53 So. 2d

64 9, 65 3- 54(F la . D ist . Ct . App. 20 07 ), a F lorida a

pp e llate c ourt de c isi on that adopte d Kni ghts to co nc lude that a wa rrantl e ss search of a

probationer ’s residence could be used for either probationary or investig atory

purposes and expressly

abrog ated e arlier

Florida state court decisions to the extent that they were superseded by Knights . 21 s ta te d th a t “[ w ]h e n a n o f f ic e rh a s r e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n th a t ap r o b a tio n e rs u b je c t to a s earc h con di t i on i s e ng aged i n cri m i nal ac t i vi ty, there i s e no ug h l i kel i ho od that c r im in a l c o n d u c t is o c c u rr in g th a t a n in tru s io n o n th e p r o b a tio n e r ’s s ig n if ic a n tly d im in is h e d p r iv a c y in te r e s ts is r e a s o n ab le .” I d . a t 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 S . C t. a t 5 9 3 . W e f o llo w e d K n ig h ts in U n ite d S ta te s v . Y u k n av ic h a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t r e a s o n ab le suspi ci on w as al l thatw as re qu i re d t o searc h a prob at i on er ’ s c om pu t er , even w here th e su sp ect ’ s p ro b at i o n ag reem en td i d n o treq u i re h i m t o su b m i tt o w arran t l ess se ar ches . U ni t ed S t at es v. Y uk navi ch, 41 9 F . 3d 13 02 , 13 09 -11 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). 2 W e ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha tac ourtm us tl ook t o the “ t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s of e a c h c a s e t o s e e w he the rthe de t a i ni ng of f i c e rha s apa rt i c ul a r i z e d a nd obj e c t i ve basi s f or suspec t i ng l egal w rong do i ng . ” I d. at13 11 . T o d et erm i ne w hether offi ce rs had reas on abl e s uspi ci on , w e “ m ustt ake s t ock o f e very thi ng they knew be f or e s e a r c hi ng. ” I d.22

I n th is c a s e , G o m e s c o n f e s s e d to p o s s e s s in g c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y o n h is c o m p u te rto f

e d e r a l la w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s . A s w e h a v e e x p la in e d , h is c onf e s s i on w a s a dm i s s i bl e be c aus e i tw a s as t a t e m e nttha tw a s notthe pr oduc tof c u s to d ia l in te rr o g a tio n . B e c au s e th e o f f ic e r s a rr iv e d a t G o m e s ’s h o u s e w ith i nf orm a t i on s ugge s t i ng tha tG om e s m i ghtbe i nvol ve d i n c hi l d pornogr aphy , a nd G o m e s s u b s e q u e n tlyc o n f e s s e d to p o s s e s s in g c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y , th e f e d e r a l a g e n ts had p art i cul ar , obj ec t i ve evi dence t o sup po rta r ea sonabl e s uspi ci on thathe w as e nga ge d i n c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty . S e e Y ukna vi c h, 419 F . 3d a t1311. I ns t e a d of s e a r c h in g G o m e s ’s r e s id e n c e a t th a t tim e G o m e s c o n f e s s e d , th e f

e d e r a l a g e n ts c ont a c t e d G om e s ’ s s t a t e pr oba t i on of f i c e r , w ho, i n c onj unc t i on w i th M or ga n, c o n d u c te d th e s e a r c h a f te rb e in g in f

o rm e d o f w h a t h a d tr a n s p ir e d . R 2 a t 1 0 6 . B ecau se th e fed eral ag en t s i n fo rm ed H i n so n o f G o m es’ s co n fessi o n , H i n so n al so had reas on abl e s uspi ci on t o searc h G om es ’ s r es i dence. C on se qu ent l y, the evi dence obt a i ne d by the s t a t e of

f i c e r s c oul d be a dm i tt e d i n f e de r a l c ourtbe c aus e the of f i c e r s ha d r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on t o s e a r c h G om e s ’ s r e s i de nc e . S e e P r e s t on, 376 U .S . a t 3 6 6 , 8 4 S . C t. a t 8 8 3 ; K n ig h ts , 5 3 4 U .S . a t 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 S . C t. a t 5 9 2 . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rrby de ny i ng G om e s ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s the evi dence s ei ze d from the se ar ch of hi s hom e. B . T he D i s tr i c tC ourtP r ope r l y A l l ow e d B a rne s ’ s E xpe rtT e s t i m ony23

W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on w i th r e s pe c tt o the a dm i s s i bi l i ty a nd re l i abi l i ty of e xp ertt es t i m on y f or an abuse of di sc re t i on and can on l y r ever se a di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ng i f

i ti s m a ni f

e s t l y e rr one ous . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F r a z i e r , 387 F . 3d 1244, 1258 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( e n ba nc ) . “ A di s tr i c tc ourtha s w i de di s c r e t i on in its d e te rm in a tio n to a d m it a n d e x c lu d e e v id e n c e , a n d th is is p a rtic u la r lytru e in th e c a s e o f

e x p e rt te s tim o n y .” U n ite d S ta te s v . B e a s le y , 7 2 F .3 d 1 5 1 8 , 1 5 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . F ed eral R u l e o f E v i d en ce 7 0 2 p ro v i d es, I f s c i e nt i f i c , t e c hni c a l , orothe rs pe c i a l i z e d know l e dge w i l l a s s i s tthe tri erof fa ctt o u nd er st and the evi dence or t o d et erm i ne a f ac ti n i ss ue, a w i tness qu al i fi ed as an expertby kn ow l edge, ski l l , experi ence , tr a i ni ng, ore duc a t i on, m a y t e s t i f y the r e t o i n the f

orm of a n opi ni on or otherw i se , i f ( 1) the t es t i m on y i s bas ed up on suff i ci entfa ct s or dat a, (2 ) th e t est i m o n y i s th e p ro d u cto f rel i ab l e p ri n ci p l es an d m eth o d s, a n d ( 3 ) th e w itn e s s h a s ap p lie d th e p r in c ip le s a n d m e th o d s r e liab lyto the fa ct s of the ca se . F e d . R . E v id . 7 0 2 . T o d e te rm in e th e a d m is s ib ilityo f e x p e rt te s tim o n y , tr ia l c o u rts m ustconsi der w hether (1) the experti s qual i fi ed t o t es t i fycom pet ent l y r egar di ng the m att er s he i nt ends t o add re ss ; (2) the m etho do l og y by w hi ch the expert r e a c he s hi s c onc l us i ons i s s uf f i c i e nt l y r e l i abl e a s de t e rm i ne d by the so rto f i n q u i ry m an d at ed i n D au b ert [ v . M errel l D o w P h arm aceu t i cal s, I nc . , 509 U . S . 579, 113 S . C t . 2786 ( 1993) ] ; a nd ( 3) the t e s t i m ony a s s is ts th e tr ie ro f

f a c t, th r o u g h th e ap p lic a tio n o f s c ie n tif ic , te c h n ic a l, or spec i al i ze d exp ert i se , t o u nd er st and the evi dence or t o d et erm i ne a fa cti n i ss ue.24

F ra zi er , 38 7 F . 3d at12 60 (quo t at i on om i tt ed). T he S up re m e C ou rti n D aubertse t outs om e c ons i de r a t i ons f ora na l y z i ng the r e l i abi l i ty of s c i e nt i f i c e xpe rtopi ni on, i nc l udi ng ( 1) w he the rthe the ory ort e c hni que c a n be a nd ha s be e n t e s t e d; ( 2) w he the ri tha s be e n s ubj e c t e d t o pe e rr e vi e w a nd publ i c a t i on; ( 3) the know n or p o t e n t i a l r a t e o f

e rr o r ; a n d ( 4 ) w h e th e ri ti s g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d . D au b e rt , 5 0 9 U . S. a t 5 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 1 3 S . C t. a t 2 7 9 6 - 9 7 . “T h e in q u iry e n v is io n e d b y R u le 7 0 2 is . . . a f l e xi bl e one . ” I d. a t594, 113 S . C t . a t2797. V oi r di re qu es t i on i ng es t abl i shed thatB arnes had been an advanced re gi st er ed nu rs e pra ct i t i on erw i th the U ni vers i ty of F l ori da C hi l d P rot ec t i on T ea m f o ra lm o s t 1 2 y e a r s a n d s h e h a d am a s te r ’s d e g r e e in p e d ia tr ic n u r s in g . R 2 a t 1 2 3 . S he had seen a t ot al of approx i m at el y 3, 60 0 chi l dren for abuse or negl ec t , had b ee n qu al i fi ed as an experti n chi l d sexual and p hysi ca l abuse c as es , and h ad appeare d as a n e x p e rt in 1 0 5 c a s e s . I d . a t 1 2 5 . S h e h a d b e e n a s k e d to u s e h e re x p e rtis e in a dol e s c e ntgr ow th a nd de ve l opm e ntt o e xa m i ne phot ogr aphs f orl a w e nf

or c e m e nt p u rp o s e s , a n d s h e h a d r e n d e r e d o p in io n s r e g a r d in g th e a g e o f c h ild r e n in phot ogr aphs i n f

ourorf i ve i nve s t i ga t i ons , tw o orthr e e of w hi c h w e r e ba s e d on ge ni t a l i aa l one . I d. a t125- 26. B a rne s a l s o i ndi c a t e d tha tthe pr i nc i pl e s a nd m e thods s he us e d w e r e r e l i abl e a nd ha d be e n s ubj e c t e d t o pe e rr e vi e w , a nd s he i dent i fi ed art i cl es and t extbo ok s on the subj ec t . R 2 at13 0-31 ; D aubert , 50 9 U . S . at25

59 3-94 , 11 3 S . C t . at27 96 -97. S he al so desc ri bed i n d et ai l the re as on s f or her o p in io n . S e e R 2 a t 1 3 6 - 3 8 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtal l o w ed su ffi ci en tv o i r d i re i n t o B arn es’ s q u al i fi cat i o n s, m etho do l og y, and the dat a s up po rt i ng her opi ni on . E ven tho ug h the di stri ctcourt su st ai n ed sev eral o f th e g o v ern m en t ’ s o b j ect i o n s d u ri n g G o m es’ s cro ssexam i nat i on of B arnes, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtal l ow ed enou gh i nq ui ry t o de t e rm i ne tha tB a rne s w a s qua l i f i e d t o r e nde ra n e xpe rtopi ni on r e ga r di ng the a g e o f c h ild r e n in p h o to g r ap h s w h ic h w o u ld a s s is t th e ju ry . S e e F e d . R . E v id . 7 0 2 . G i ven thatthe di stri ctcourtcoul d fi nd thatB arnes w as suff i ci ent l y qual i fi ed, her m etho do l og y w as re l i abl e, and h ert es t i m on y c ou l d h elp the j ury det erm i ne an e le m e n t o f

th e o f f e n s e , th e c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in a llo w in g h e rto te s tif y . S e e F r a z ie r , 3 8 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 0 . C . T he D i s tr i c tC ourtP r ope r l y A l l ow e d J a kobs e n’ s T e s t i m ony “W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s ad m issio n o f e v id en ce o v era d ef en d an t’ s obj e c t i on pur s uantt o F e d. R . E vi d. 403 f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r a dbe rry , 466 F . 3d 1249, 1253 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . “ [ W ] e vi e w the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o a dm i s s i on, m a xi m i z i ng i t ’ s pr oba t i ve va l ue a nd m i ni m i z i ng i t s undue pr e j udi c i a l i m pa c t . ” I d. W e w i l l f i nd a n abus e of d is c r e tio n “[ o ]n lyif

th e d e c is io n to a d m it e v id e n c e o v e raR u le 4 0 3 c h a lle n g e is26

uns upport abl e w he n the e vi de nc e i s vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os ts upport i ve of the deci si on . ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). R ul e 403 prov i des thatre l evantevi dence m ay be e xc l ude d “ i f

i t s pr oba t i ve va l ue i s s ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by the da nge rof unf a i rpr e j udi c e . . . . ” F e d. R . E vi d. 403. I ti s ac r i m e t o pr oduc e pornogr aphy i nvol vi ng a“ m i nor . ” 18 U . S . C . § 2251( a ) . A “ m i nor ” i s de f i ne d a s “ a ny pe r s on un der the age of ei gh t ee n years . ” 18 U . S . C . § 2 25 6(1). I n thi s c a s e , J a kobs e n t e s t i f i e d tha ts he a nd he rs i s t e r , B r i tt a ny , w ho w a s 13 ye ar s ol d i n 2 00 5, had st ay ed atG om es ’ s hou se and thatB ri tt any had been there al on e w i th G om es . R 2 at11 3. Jako bsen al so t es t i fi ed thatB ri tt any had other fr i ends cl ose t o B ri tt any’ s a ge w ho al so spentt i m e a tG om es ’ s r es i dence. Id. at 1 1 3 -1 4 . T h i s t est i m o n y w as rel ev an tan d p ro b at i v e o f w h eth er G o m es h ad access t o gi r l s unde rthe a ge of 18, w hi c h w a s c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e f orthe gove rnm e nt t o e s t abl i s h tha tG om e s ha d vi ol a t e d 18 U . S . C . § 2251( a ) . G i ve n tha tthe t e s t i m ony w as p ro b at i v e o f a m at eri al el em en to f C o u n tT h ree, th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng J a kobs e n’ s t e s t i m ony . S e e B r a dbe rry , 466 F . 3d a t1253. G om es ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n al l ow i ng Jako bsen t o t es t i fy because hert es t i m on y w as cont i ng entup on the go vernm entca l l i ng her s i st er , B r itta n y , to te s tif

y , w h ic h d id n o t h ap p e n . H o w e v e r , w h ile th e g o v e rn m e n t d id i nd i ca t e thati tpl anned t o cal l B ri tt any t o t es t i fy , R 2 at14 7, 12 1, the re cord do es27

n o t sh o w th at Ja k o b se n ’s testim o n y w as in an y w ay co n d it io n ed u p o n B ritt an y’s testim o n y. A d d it io n ally, th e g o v ern m en t sp ec ifically stated th at Ja ck o b se n ’s te s tim o n y w a s f

o rth e p u rp o s e o f

e s tab lis h in g th a t G o m e s h a d a c c e s s to y o u n g g ir ls of w hom he c oul d t a ke phot ogr aphs . I d. a t111. G om e s ’ s a r gum e nti s w i thout m e r it. D . T he D i stri ctC ou rtP roperl y I m po se d C on se cut i ve S ent ence s W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on a nd appl i c a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . A m e d e o , 4 8 7 F .3 d 8 2 3 , 8 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e rt. deni ed, 12 8 S . C t . 67 1 (20 07 ). S ec t i on 5G 1. 3(b) of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes prov i des thati f at e rm of i m pr i s onm e ntr e s ul t e d f r om a nothe rof

f e ns e tha ti s r e l e va nt c onduc tt o the i ns t a ntof f e ns e of c onvi c t i on unde rthe pr ovi s i ons of s ubs e c t i ons ( a ) ( 1) , ( a ) ( 2) , or( a ) ( 3) of § 1B 1. 3 ( R e l e va ntC onduc t ) a nd tha tw a s the ba s i s f

ora n i nc r e a s e i n the of

f e ns e l e ve l f

orthe i ns t a nt offe nse und erC hapt erT w o (O ff ense C on du ct ) or C hapt erT hree (A dj ustm ent s) , the se nt ence for the i nst antoffe nse s hal l be i m po se d as fol l ow s: . . . (2) the se nt ence for the i nst antoffe nse s hal l be i m po se d t o run c onc urr e nt l y t o the r e m a i nde rof the undi s c ha r ge d t e rm of im p r is o n m e n t. U .S .S .G . 5 G 1 .3 ( b ) . T h e ap p lic a tio n n o te s p r o v id e th a t s u b s e c tio n ( b ) “ap p lie s in cases i n w h i ch al l o f th e p ri o r o ffen se (i ) i s rel ev an tco n d u ctt o th e i n st an to ffen se unde rthe pr ovi s i on of

s ubs e c t i on ( a ) ( 1) , ( a ) ( 2) , or( a ) ( 3) of § 1B 1. 3 ( R e l e va nt C o n d u ct ); an d (i i ) h as resu l t ed i n an i n crease in th e C h ap t er T w o o r T h ree o ffen se28

l e ve l f orthe i ns t a ntof

f e ns e . ” U . S . S . G . § 5G 1. 3, c om m e nt . ( n. 2( A ) ) . S ubs e c t i on ( b) doe s notappl y i f

the pr i orof

f e ns e i nc r e a s e d the of

f e ns e l e ve l f

orthe i ns t a nt offe nse, “ bu tw as no tre l evantcond uctt o the i nst antoffe nse und er§ 1 B 1. 3(a) (1), ( a ) ( 2 ) , o r( a ) ( 3 ) .” U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .3 , c o m m e n t. ( n .2 ( B ) ) . S ect i o n 5 G 1 . 3 (c) o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es p ro v i d es, “ [i ] n an y o th er case i nvol vi ng a n undi s c ha r ge d t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt , the s e nt e nc e f orthe i ns t a nt of f e ns e m a y be i m pos e d t o run c onc urr e nt l y , pa rt i a l l y c onc urr e nt l y , or consec ut i vel y t o the pri or un di sc harged t erm of i m pri sonm entt o achi eve a r e a s o n ab le p u n is h m e n t f o rth e in s ta n t o f

f e n s e .” U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .3 ( c ) , p .s .

“ S ubs e c t i on ( c ) appl i e s i n c a s e s i n w hi c h the de f e nda ntw a s on . . . s t a t e pr oba t i on

. . . atthe t i m e of the i nst antoffe nse and has had such prob at i on . . . re vo ked. ” U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 3, com m ent . (n. 3(C )) .

“ R e l e va ntC onduc t ” i nc l ude s ( 1) “ a l l a c t s a nd om i s s i ons c om m i tt e d, a i de d, abe tt e d, c ouns e l e d, c om m a nde d, i nduc e d, pr oc ur e d, orw i l l f ul l y c aus e d by the d e f e n d a n t . . . th a t o c c u rr e d d u r in g th e c o m m is s io n o f th e o f f e n s e o f c o n v ic tio n , in pr e pa r a t i on f

ortha tof f e ns e , ori n the c our s e of a tt e m pt i ng t o a voi d de t e c t i on or r e s p o n s ib ilityf

o rth a t o f f e n s e ,” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; ( 2 ) “s o le lyw ith r e s p e c t to o f f e n s e s o f ac h a r a c te rf

o rw h ic h § 3 D 1 .2 ( d ) w o u ld r e q u ir e g r o u p in g o f m u ltip le c ount s , a l l a c t s a nd om i s s i ons de s c r i be d i n s ubdi vi s i ons ( 1) ( A ) . . . tha tw e r e pa rtof29

the s a m e c our s e of

c onduc torc om m on s c he m e orpl a n a s the of f e ns e of c o n v ic tio n ,” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; a n d ( 3 ) “a ll h a rm th a t r e s u lte d f r o m th e a c ts and o m i ss i on s s peci fi ed i n sub se ct i on s ( a) (1) and (a )( 2) abov e, and al l harm that w as the obj ec tof such ac t s and om i ss i on s . . . . ” U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 3(a) (3). H e r e , i ti s notdi s put e d tha tG om e s ’ s pr i ors t a t e c ourtc onvi c t i on w a s the ba s i s f oraf i ve - l e ve l i nc r e a s e i n hi s of f e ns e l e ve l f

ore nga gi ng i n apa tt e rn or p r a c tic e o f

s e x u a l b e h a v io rw h ic h s te m m e d f r o m h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n , p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 5) . T he i s s ue turns on w he the rhi s pr e vi ous s t a t e c onvi c t i on c ons t i tut e s “ r e l e va ntc onduc tt o the i ns t a ntof f e ns e of c onvi c t i on unde rthe prov i si on s of s ub se ct i on s ( a) (1), (a )( 2), or (a )( 3) of § 1 B 1. 3. ” U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 3(b). G o m e s ’s 2 0 0 1 s ta te c o n v ic tio n f o rle w d a n d la s c iv io u s a s s au lt o n ac h ild un der the age of 16 d oes notqu al i fyas “ re l evantcond uct ” f or hi s pre se ntcr i m es be c aus e i tdi d noti nvol ve ( 1) a c t s orom i s s i ons tha toc c urr e d dur i ng, i n pr e pa r a t i on f o r , o ri n a v o i d i n g d e t e c t i o n f o rh i s o f f e n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n , s e e U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1. 3(a) (1); (2) a ct s or om i ss i on s thatw er e partof the “ sam e c ou rs e of c on du ct orc om m on s c he m e orpl a n” a s hi s pr e s e ntof f e ns e , s e e U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3( a ) ( 2) ; nor (3) harm re sul t i ng fr om or thatw as the obj ec tof such ac t s or om i ss i on s, se e U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3( a ) ( 3) . C ons e que nt l y , though G om e s ’ s 2001 s t a t e c onvi c t i on in c r e a s e d h is b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l f

o rh is p r e s e n t o f

f e n s e , it d id n o t c o n s titu te30

“ r e l e v a n tc o n d u c t ” f

o rh i s p r e s e n to f

f e n s e wi th i n th e m e a n i n g o f U. S . S . G. § 5G 1. 3( b) . S e e U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2, c om m e nt . ( n. 1) ( i ndi c a t i ng tha t“ pa tt e rn of a c t i vi ty ” i n § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 5) e nc om pa s s e s tw o orm or e i ns t a nc e s w he r e the de f e nda nt s e xua l l y abus e d ore xpl oi t e d am i nor , w he the rornoti t“ ( A ) oc c urr e d dur i ng the c our s e of the of f e ns e ; ( B ) i nvol ve d the s a m e m i nor ; or( C ) r e s ul t e d i n ac onvi c t i on f o rs u c h c o n d u c t” ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . A n d e rto n , 1 3 6 F .3 d7 4 7 , 7 5 1 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 98 ) ( per c uri am ) ( ho l di ng that“ patt ern o f a ct i vi ty” “ cl earl y perm i t s an in c r e a s e d o f

f e n s e le v e l f

o rc o n d u c t u n r e la te d to th e o f f e n s e o f c o n v ic tio n ” ) . G om e s ’ s s i tua t i on f

i t s w i thi n the de f

i ni t i on of § 5G 1. 3( c ) be c aus e he w a s on st at e probat i on w hen h e c om m i tt ed the i nst antoffe nses , and thatprob at i on w as re vo ked. U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 3, cm t . 3(C ) ( “ S ub se ct i on (c ) app l i es i n cas es i n w hi ch the de f e nda ntw a s on . . . s t a t e pr oba t i on . . . a tthe t i m e of the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e a nd h a s h a d s u c h p r o b a tio n . . . r e v o k e d ” ) . B e c au s e G o m e s ’s 2 0 0 1 s ta te c o n v ic tio n d id n o t c o n s titu te “r e le v a n t c o n d u c t” f o rh is p r e s e n t o f

f e n s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly ordered hi s s ent ence t o run consec ut i vel y t o h i s und i sc harged st at e s ent ence p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .3 ( c ) . I I I . CONCL US I ON G o m e s c h a lle n g e s h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s p o s s e s s in g c h ild pornogr aphy , r e c e i vi ng c hi l d pornogr aphy , a nd pr oduc i ng c hi l d pornogr aphy . T he31

d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lya d m itte d s ta te m e n ts G o m e s m a d e to la w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n ts du ri ng no n-cust od i al qu es t i on i ng and evi dence s ei ze d p ursuantt o a l aw ful se ar ch of G om e s ’ s r e s i de nc e w hi c h oc c urr e d a f t e rthe a ge nt s ha d ar e a s onabl e s us pi c i on th a t G o m e s p o s s e s s e d c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y . D u r in g tr ia l, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tly a l l ow e d G om e s ’ s s t e p- daught e rt o t e s t i f yr e ga r di ng G om e s ’ s a c c e s s t o c hi l dr e n a nd B a rn e s to te s tif

y a s a n e x p e rt w itn e s s to id e n tif y th e a g e s o f

p e r s o n s d e p ic te d in c e rta in p h o to g r ap h s . A f te rG o m e s w a s c o n v ic te d , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly s e nt e nc e d G om e s t o s e rve c ons e c ut i ve t e rm s be c aus e hi s a c t i ons r e s ul t i ng i n apr i or c onvi c t i on f

orl e w d a nd l a s c i vi ous a s s aul ton am i nordi d noti nvol ve “ r e l e va nt c o n d u c t ” t o h i s a c t i o n s th a tl e d t o th e c o n v i c t i o n s i n th i s c a s e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f f irm G o m e s ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s . AF F I RME D.