FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 37 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 05 98 -CM A-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us LAMAR J OHNSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 5, 2 01 1) Befo re WILSON, MARTIN an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Lam ar J oh ns onap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r po ss es si on with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e m ari

juan a in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) ; p os se ss io n o f a fi rearmin furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A); an d p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a con vi ct edfel on in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). He als o app eal s h is to ta l 1 08 -m on th sen te nc e. On ap pe al , Jo hn so n arg ue s t ha t the di stric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is pre tri al m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce s ei zedpu rs ua ntto anall eg ed ly unl awfu l s earc h warran t, an d t ha t the di st ric t co urt v io la te d h is Six th Am en dm en t an d s ta tu to ry rig ht s b y in crea si ng hi s se nt en ci ng gu id el in e cal cu la ti on ba se d o n o th er cr im in al co nduc t fo r whi ch he was acqui tt ed . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm Jo hn so n’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e. I. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s as a m ix edqu es ti onof l aw an d fa ct , rev ie win g fi nd in gs of f act , in cl ud in g c red ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns , forcle ar erro r an d t he ap pl ic at io n o f la w to th os e fac ts de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Whi te , 59 3 F .3d11 99 , 12 02 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Sim il arl y , we rev ie w de n ov o wh ethe r pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d t o s up po rt asea rchwarran t, al th ou gh we “ take care bo th to rev ie w fin di ng s o f hi st or ic al facton ly for cl ear e rro r an d t o g iv e due weig htto in fere nc es dra wn fr om

th os e fac ts by resi de ntjud ge s an d l oc al law en fo rcem en t of fic ers .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gam ory , 63 5 F .3d48 0, 4 91 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) .

2To o bt ai n awarran t t o s earc h ade fen da nt ’s res id en ce, l aw en fo rcem en t m us t sh ow t he au th or iz in g m ag is tra te pro babl e cau se , th atis , th at“ th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces all ows th e co nc lu si on th atth ere i s a f ai r pr ob ab il it y

th atco ntrab an d orev id en ce o f a cri m e wil l b e fo un d [t he re].” Uni te d S ta te s v . Kapo rd el is , 56 9 F.3 d 1 29 1, 1 31 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . An af fid av itsupp orti ng su ch a se arch warran t s ho ul d g en eral ly “ es tabl is h a co nn ect io n b etweenth e d efen da ntan d t he res id en ce t o b e se arch edan d ali nk be twee n the res id en ce an d any crim in al act iv it y ,” th ou gh de ta il edfactua l al le ga ti on s ab ou t a r es id en ce i ts el f m ay be su ffi ci en t t o d o s o. Un it edSta te s v . Marti n, 2 97 F.3d13 08 , 13 14 –1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . The i nf orm at io n i n t he affi da vi t m us t al so be fres h, m ean in g re cen t en ou gh to be rel iabl e. Id . at 1 31 4. If an in fo rm an t i s m en ti on edin th e aff id av it , th e aff

id av itm us t d em on st rat e th e in fo rm an t’s “ ve raci ty” and“ba si s o f kn owl ed ge .” Ill in oi s v . Gates , 46 2 U.S. 21 3, 2 38 , 10 3 S . Ct. 2 31 7, 2 33 2 (1 98 3) . Howev er, “ [w]henth ere i s s uf fic ie nt in de pe nd en t co rro bo rat io n o f anin fo rm an t’s i nf orm at io n, t he re i s n o n eedto es tabl is h t he ve raci ty of th e in fo rm an t.” M art in , 29 7 F .3dat 1 31 4 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Affi da vi ts supp orti ng sea rch warran ts are p res um pt iv el y va li d. Gam ory , 63 5 F .3dat 4 90 . A defe nd an t m ay ch al le ng e th e aff

id av it ’s val id it y

by m ak in g a 3subs ta nt ia l p rel im in ary sh owi ng th atth e aff id av itco nt ai ne d afal se st at em en t, in cl ud edkn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y or wi th reck le ss di sr eg ardforth e trut h. Id . Upo n s uc h ash owi ng , andif t he ch al le ng edst at em en t m ig htha ve be enne ces sa ry to supp ort p ro babl e cau se , th e d is tri ctco urt m us t h ol d a n e vi de nt ia ry

he ari ng . Id. At the so -cal le d “ Fran ks he ari ng ,” th e d efen da ntm ay ha ve th e warra ntvo id edan d th e fru it s o f th e se arch ex cl ud edif h e sh ows th at , bu t fo r th e m is rep res en ta ti on s o r om is si on s, the go ve rn m en t co ul d n otha ve est ab li sh edpro babl e cau se . See i d.; see al so Fran ks v. Del aware , 43 8 U.S. 1 54 , 15 6, 9 8 S . Ct. 2 67 4, 2 67 6 (1 97 8) . Jo hn so n a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n t o supp res s p hysic al ev id en ce d is co ve reddu rin g t he sea rch of h is res id en ce, b ecau se th e warra ntrel ie d o n aMi am i-Da de Po li ce Dep art m en t d et ect iv e’s affi da vi t tha t co nt ai ne d a n a ll eg ed ly fals e st at em en t. J oh ns on arg ue s t ha t, af te r ex ci si ng th e de te ct iv e’s al le ge dl y

fal se st at em en t, the affi da vi t d idno t co nt ai n i nf orm at io n su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt afin di ng of p ro babl e cau se to sea rch hi s re si de nc e. W e co nc lu de th at , eve n abs en t the st at em en ts reg ard in g t he off ic er’s pe rs on al ob se rv at io ns , th e rem ai nd er o f th e warra ntis su ffi ci en t t o p ro vi de pr ob ab le cau se . To be su re, the de te ct iv e’s affi da vi t l os es so m e fo rce wi th ou t h is di rectob se rv at io n o f a p ers on bro ad ly fitt in g J oh ns on ’s des cri pt io n. Bu t the warra ntwas i ss ue d t o s earc h t he pre m is es , no t J oh ns on ’s per so n; an d t he affi da vi t 4co nt ai ns en ou gh fres h a ndde ta il edfactua l al le ga ti on s ab ou t the pre m is es to

supp ort a f

in di ng of p ro babl e cau se . See Ma rti n, 2 97 F.3dat 1 31 4– 15 . Thes e al le ga ti on s i nc lu de th e d et ect iv e’s di rectob se rv at io n a t the ho us e o f two co nt ro ll edbu y s, co nduc te d a cco rd in g t o asetof p ro cedur es de si gn edto en su re th ei r rel iabi li ty. The p ro cedur es als o p ro vi de su ffi ci en t i nd ep en de ntco rro bo rat io n of th e v erac it y

of t he CI. See i d. We th eref or e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to de ny the m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

II. Jo hn so n n ex t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y in crea se d h is se nt en ci ng gu id el in e cal cu la ti on ba se d o n a cqui tt edco nduc t. He cl ai m s, fo r th e fir stti m e, th atth is us e o f acqui tt edco nduc t v io la te s h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o a jury tria l. 1 InFau st , we hel d t ha t, wh enus in g t he sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s i n an a dv is ory m an ne r, di st ric t co urts m ay co ns id er co nduc t u nd erl y in g the acqui tt edch arg e so lo ng as t he fact s und erl y in g the co nduc t ar e p ro ve d b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e We reviewthe district court’s f actua l determinations for c lear err or, and its application 1 and leg al interpre tations of the Guidelines de novo. United States v. Z aldivar, 615 F .3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2010). Arguments not raised in the district cour t are revie wed f

or plain er

ror. See F ed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Duncan, 400 F .3d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 2005). B y its nature, re view for

plain err or cor

rec ts only err ors that wer e re adily

appar ent under

controlling prec edent. See United States v. L ett, 483 F.3d 782, 790 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 5ev id en ce an d t he sen te nc e im po se d d oe s n otex ceedth e m ax im um sen te nc e au th or iz edby the jury ve rd ic t. Uni te d S ta te s v . Fau st , 45 6 F .3d13 42 , 13 47 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Sim il arl y , we hav e h el d t ha t a s en te nc in g c ou rt m ay co ns id er a de fen da nt ’s acqui tt al at tria l fo r po ss es si on of d ru gs , wher e th e d efen dantwas co nv ic te d o f po ss es si on of o th er dru gs an d fa il edto rai se a Si xt h Am en dm en t ob jecti onat s en te nc in g. Se e g en eral ly D un can , 40 0 F .3d12 97 . Jo hn so n a ckno wled ge s t hi s p rece de ntbu t n on ethe le ss arg ue s t ha t thi s Co urt’s d eci si on s i n Dunc anan d F au stare n otin ke ep in g wi th Supr em e Co urt juri sp ru de nc e an d t he Co ns ti tu ti on . W e ref rai n fr om pa ss in g o n the m eri ts of Jo hn so n’s ar gu m en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Hog an , 98 6 F .2d13 64 , 13 69 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (“ [I]t is th e fi rm ly establ is he d ru le of t hi s C irc ui t tha t ea ch su ccee di ng pa ne l is bo un d b y

th e h ol di ng of t he fir stpa ne l t o a ddres s an is su e o f la w, un le ss an d un ti l tha t h ol di ng is ov erru le d e n b an c, orby the Supr em e Co urt.”) . W e th eref or e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err, andaffi rm Jo hn so n’s 1 08 -m on th se nt en ce. AFFIRMED .

6