FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 69 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 03 68 -UU-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DENZIL ROY MONTA GUE, JR., 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st15 , 20 11 )
Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Den zi l M on ta gu e Jr . app eal s h is co nv ic ti on an d 2 35 -m on th sen te nc e fo r

po ss es si on of afir earm

an d a m m un it io n b y

a co nv ic te d fe lo n, i n v io la ti onof 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 9 24 (e)( 1) . On ap pe al , he f irs t at ta ck s t he di stric t co urt’s or de r de nyin g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s the fir earm an d a m m un it io n o bt ai ne d dur in g a Ter ry st op an d s earc h. A kno wn i nf orm an t h adcal le d t he po li ce wi th a ti p t ha t 1 Mo nt ag ue was c arrying a gu n, an d M on ta gu e d oe s n otdi sp ut e th atth e in fo rm an t was rel iabl e. Howev er, h e subm it s t ha t, s in ce ca rry in g aco nc eal edfir earm wit h a pe rm itis leg al inFlo rid a, th e p ol ic e o ffi cers di d n otha ve reas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t he was i nv ol ve d i n any ill eg al act iv it y th atvi ol at edFlo rid a st at e law bec au se th ey di d n otkn ow wh ethe r he ha d ape rm it . Seco nd , Mo nt ag ue arg ue s t ha t h is se nt en ce, atth e lo w endof t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , was s ub st an ti ve ly un reas on ab le . I. MOTION TO SUPPRESS A di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng ona m ot io n t o s up pr es s p res en ts a m ix edqu es ti on of law an d fa ct . Uni te d Sta te s v. Ba ut is ta -Sil va , 56 7 F .3d12 66 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d re vi ew de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w to th e fac ts . W e al so rev ie w de no vo whethe r rea so nabl e su sp ic io n ju st ifi edth e in ve st ig at ory st op . Id. All fact s Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 1 2are c on st ru edin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p rev ai li ng pa rty bel ow. Uni te d

St at es v. Berv aldi , 22 6 F .3d12 56 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ).

“ Evi de nc e o bt ai ne d i n v io la ti on of t he Fo urth Am en dm en t m us t b e supp res se d.” Uni te d Sta te s v. J or da n , 63 5 F .3d11 81 , 11 85 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). The Fo urthAm en dm en t, h owe ve r, do es no t p ro hi bi t a p ol ic e o ffi cer f ro m sei zi ng a su sp ectfora br ie f, in ve st ig at ory st op wher e th e o ffi cer h as a reas on ab le su sp ic io n th atth e su sp ectwas i nv ol ve d i n, o r is ab ou t t o b e in vo lv edin , cri m in al act iv it y . Ter ryv. Ohi o , 39 2 U.S. 1 , 19 -2 0 (1 96 8) . “ [R]eas on ab le su sp ic io n i s a l es s de m an di ng st an da rdth anpro babl e cau se ,” bu t re qu ire s “ atlea sta m in im al lev el of ob jecti ve jus ti fic at io n fo r m ak in g t he st op ” in li gh t o f th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Jo rd

an , 63 5 F .3dat 1 18 6. Inco nn ect io n wi tha Ter ry st op , a po li ce o ffi cer wh o h as reas on to be li ev e th athe is de al in g wi th anarm edan d d an ge ro us in di vi du al m ay als o c on du cta reas on ab le search forweap on s i n s up po rt o f hi s o wn p ro te ct io n a ndth atof o th ers , ev enif h e is no t ab so lu te ly certa in th atth e in di vi du al is arm ed . Ter ry , 39 2 U.S. at 27 . An o ffi cer m ay

co nduc t a Ter ry pa t-d own search forweap on s o n asu sp ect ’s pe rs on if t he requi si te reas on ab le su sp ic io n i s p res en t, an d t ha t se arch m ay co nt in ue when anoff

ic er fe el s a c on ceal edob

ject t ha t h e rea so nabl y

be li ev es m ay be a weap on . Uni te d Sta te s v. Cla y , 48 3 F .3d73 9, 7 43 -4 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 7) . 3Here, t he Gov ern m en t co nt en ds th atwhen th e o ffi cers co nduc te d t he Ter ry

st op an d fr is k, t he y

ha d areas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t M on ta gu e was co m m it ti ng th e of fen se of c arrying a co nc eal edfir earm . A secu rit y gu ardwho ha d p rev io us ly pr ov id edrel iabl e in fo rm at io n re po rte d t o o ne of t he off ic ers th atMo nt ag ue ha d a fir earm , andMo nt ag ue do es no t co nt es t t ha t t he gu ardwas arel iabl e so ur ce. Mo nt ag ue arg ue s, h owe ve r, th atev enwit h t he in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d b y th e g ua rd , th e o ffi cers co ul d n otha ve reas on ab ly sus pe ct edth athe was e ng ag in g i n c riminal act iv ity be cau se un de r Fl or id a la w itis no t i ll eg al to po ss es s a c on ceal edweap on if t he carr ie r ha s a p erm it . Fl or id a la w pro vi de s: “ A per so n wh o c arri es a co nc eal edfir earm on or ab ou t h is or h er p ers on co m m it s a f el on y of t he th irdde gr ee.” Fl a. St at . § 7 90 .01 (2 ) (2 00 6) . This pro hi bi ti on do es no t ap pl y , ho wev er, “ to a pe rs on li cen se d t o c arry . . . a con ceal edfir earm pu rs ua ntto th e p ro vi si on s o f s. 7 90 .06 .” Id. § 7 90 .01 (3 ). The ab se nc e o f a l ic en se is no t i ts el f an ele m en t o f th e cri m e; 2 in st ead , pro of

of ali cen se m ay

be rai se d a s an affi rm at iv e d efen se . W at t v. Sta te , 31 So .3d23 8, 2 42 (Fl a. 4t h DCA 2 01 0) .

The owne rs of such a

permit must have it in possession at all times when in actua l 2 possession of a c oncea led fire arm, a nd must displ ay

the license upon demand by a law enfor ceme nt office r. Id. § 790.06(1). 4Mo nt ag ue rel ie s upo n Regal ado v . St at e , 25 So .3d60 0 (F la . 4th DCA 2 00 9) ,

a Fl or id a Fo urth Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal de ci si on , to arg ue th atth ere was no reas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t h e was in vo lv edin il le ga l ac ti vi ty becau se po ss es si on of a co nc eal edfir earm

is no t p res um

pt iv el y a vi ol at io n o f Fl or id a la w. Regal ado he ld , Bec au se itis leg al to carry a co nc eal edweap on in Flo rid a, if on e h as a p erm itto do so , andno in fo rm at io n o f su sp ic io us cri m in al act iv it y was pro vi de d t o t he off

ic er o th er tha n app el la nt ’s po ss es si onof agu n, th e m ere p os se ss io n o f a weap on , witho utm or e, can no t ju st ify a Ter ry st op . 25 So .3dat 6 01 . Inco nt ras t, i n St at e v. Na va rr o , 46 4 S o.2 d 1 37 , 13 9- 40 (Fl a. 3r d DCA 19 85 ), th e en ba nc Flo rid a Thi rdDis tri ctCo urt o f App eal , whi le no t ex pl ic it ly ad dr es si ng th e p os si bi li ty of a co nc eal edweap on s p erm it , fou ndth atpro babl e 3 cau se ex is te d t o p atdo wn an d s earc h ade fen da ntwher e th e o ffi cer o bs erv edth e bu lg e o f wha t ap pe aredto be a co nc eal edfir earm pro tru di ng fro m

th e d efen da nt ’s jack et . The co urt ad op te d t he di ss en ti ng op in io n fr om th e p an el de ci si on , ho ld in g th atth e “ of

fic ers ’ ob se rv at io n o f th e o ut li ne of afir earm am ou nt edto pr ob ab le

The wor ding of

Fla. Stat. § 790.01 wa s differ ent at the time Navarro was de cided, but, 3 like the cur

rent statute, it provided that a per son car rying a conce aled f

irea rm was guilty

of a felony in the third degreeand sepa rate ly stated that this provision did not apply to individuals with a license to car

ry conce aled f

irea rms. 5ca us eto be li ev e th at[th e d efen da nt ] was carry in g aco nc eal edweap on , just ifyin g

no t m erel y

a pa t-d own , bu t a s earc h.” Id. at 1 39 ; se e a ls o Sta te v. Bur go s , 99 4 S o. 2d12 12 , 12 14 (Fl a. 5t h DCA 2 00 8) (ho ld in g t ha t a s us pe ct ’s adm is si on th athe was carry in g aweap on supp orte d areas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t h e was co m m it ti ng a cri m e b ecau se “ [a]ltho ug h s om e ci ti zen s d o h av e th e ri gh t t o c arry con ceal ed fir earm s l awfu ll y , th e v as t m ajor it y do no t” ).

“ [I]n the ab se nc e o f in te rd is tri ctco nf li ct , di st ric t co urt d eci si on s b in d a ll Fl or id a tr ia l co urts ” u nl es s an d u nt il th ey are o ve rru le d b y

th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. Par do v. St at e, 59 6 S o.2 d 6 65 , 66 6 (F la . 19 92 ). “ [I]f th e d is tri ctco urt o f th e d is tri ctin whi ch th e tr ia l co urt i s l oc at edha s d eci de d t he is su e, th e tr ia l co urt i s bo un d t o fo ll ow i t. Co nt rari ly, as be twee n Di st ric t Co urts of Ap pe al , a si st er di st ric t’s o pi ni on is m erel y pe rs ua si ve .” Id. at 6 66 -6 7 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . The ho ld in g o f Na va rr o , a Thi rdDis tri ctCo urt o f App eal cas e, is bi nd in g up on Mo nt ag ue ’s cas e b ecau se itoc curredinth atdi st ric t, an d F lo rid a co urts wou ldon ly con si de r th e h ol di ng of Regal ad o , a Fo urth Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal cas e, as pe rs ua si ve . Se e Par do , 59 6 S o.2 d a t 6 66 -6 7. Un de r th e fac ts of t hi s ca se , th e o ffi cers di d n otne edto asc ert ai n wh ethe r Mo nt ag ue ha d ape rm itbe fo re the y co nduc te d a Ter ry st op an d s earc h b ecau se th ey ha d re as on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t h e

6was carry in g aco nc eal edweap on ba se d o n arel iabl e in fo rm an t’s t ip th at

Mo nt ag ue was c arrying a gu n. II. SUBSTANTIVE REASONABLENESS OF MONTAGUE’ S SENTENCE W e rev ie w a se nt en ce fo r rea so nabl en es s u nd er an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd . Gal l v. Un it ed

St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1 (2 00 7) . “ Altho ug h we d o n ot au to m at ic al ly pres um e a s en te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in es ran ge is reas on ab le , we ‘ord in ari ly exp ecta se nt en ce wi th in th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le .’ ” Uni te d Sta te s v. Hu nt , 52 6 F .3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (el li ps is om it te d) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta te s v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 )). At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt, i n c on si de rin g t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, fo un d t ha t, b as edon hi s cr im in al hi st ory , Mo nt ag ue ha d a

“ co m pl et e d is reg ardforth e la w” an d “ ha [d ] co nt in ue d t o p os se ss fir earm s fr om ti m e to ti m e,” wh ic h s ug ge st edth athe was “ a d an ge r to th e co m m un it y .” The di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y im po si ng a 23 5- m on th sen te nc e atth e lo w endof t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm Mo nt ag ue ’s se nt en ce as subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le . II I. CONCLUS IO N Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED. 7