FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 23, 2011

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 10-1461

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BASS,

Defendant - Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

(D.C. NO. 1:09-CR-00230-DME-1)

John F. Sullivan, III, The Law Office of John F. Sullivan, III, P.C., Denver,

Colorado, for Defendant - Appellant.

Andrew A. Vogt, Assistant United States Attorney, (John F. Walsh, United States

Attorney, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

A jury of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado

convicted Defendant Christopher Bass on one count of being a felon in possession

of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 94 months in
prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal he contends (1) that the

search that discovered the firearm was unlawful because (a) the government failed

to show that his girlfriend’s consent to search his trailer was voluntary and (b) his

girlfriend lacked authority to consent to the search of a zipper bag in the trailer;

(2) that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment because he received

Sentencing Guidelines offense-level enhancements for alleged misconduct that he

was acquitted of by the jury; and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain

the conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.1

 

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Investigation

We take our factual summary from the evidence at the pretrial hearing on

Defendant’s motion to suppress. 

Upon receiving a tip, Colorado Springs Police Officers Jessica Kundert and

Shane Alvarez set up surveillance of Defendant’s residence shortly after 1:00 p.m.

on February 25, 2009. During their surveillance they observed a male, later

identified as Defendant, leaving the area in a vehicle. They also observed a

woman exiting the residence with what appeared to be personal belongings and

putting them in a car trunk, although she did not leave the area. The officers

1 Defendant’s reply brief claims that there was insufficient evidence of his

prior conviction, but we do not address this claim because it was not raised in the

opening brief. See United States v. Murray, 82 F.3d 361, 363 n.3 (10th Cir. 1996)

(“We decline to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”).

-2-
followed Defendant. After events not relevant on appeal, officers arrested

Defendant for possessing drug paraphernalia, searched his vehicle incident to the

arrest, found methamphetamine inside the vehicle, and took Defendant to the

police station. 

Officers Kundert and Alvarez returned to the trailer at 3:00 p.m. to

investigate further. When they knocked on the door, Jessica Ramsey (the woman

whom they had observed earlier) answered, stepping outside to talk to them on

the front porch. She told the officers that she lived in the trailer with her

boyfriend, Christopher. She had used methamphetamine the previous evening and

earlier that day, but she did not appear to be under the influence. Although she

testified that she sometimes had difficulty deciding whether she was high or

“normal,” she said that she was not high when the officers were there. R., Vol. 1

pt. 3 at 149.

Ms. Ramsey was initially hesitant to talk with the officers. She said that

she needed to speak with the homeowner, and tried to call Defendant. The

officers informed her that he was in custody. She became upset and began crying. 

But she told the officers that she was relieved because Defendant had been

verbally abusing her, and she referred to the officers as angels. 

The officers told her that they had found Defendant with drugs and a

weapon (which was untrue—no weapon had actually been discovered) and that

they wanted to search the residence for anything illegal. Officer Alvarez asked

-3-
Ms. Ramsey if there was anything illegal in the residence. She said that she did

not know, but that Defendant sometimes hid things. 

At various times before the hearing, Ms. Ramsey had given conflicting

statements about what happened next, but the district court ultimately credited her

testimony (1) that she initially refused consent to a search, but when she learned

that Defendant was in custody, she started to cooperate with the officers; and (2)

that while she and the officers were still talking on the porch, she orally

consented to their request to search the entire trailer for illegal items. The

officers did not immediately give Ms. Ramsey the written consent form because it

was in the officers’ vehicle and because she was upset. After the officers started

searching, they explained the written consent form to her and she signed it. 

Based on his initial observations inside the trailer, Officer Alvarez asked for

assistance, and several other officers arrived to join the search. During the search

Ms. Ramsey provided information about firearms and drugs that she had seen in

the trailer, and she told the officers that Defendant stored firearms in black bags,

satchels, or backpacks. Officer Alvarez found a black leather zipper bag in the

living room. Upon opening it, he found a revolver, a computer, a digital scale, an

adult magazine, and CDs. He did not ask Ms. Ramsey who owned the bag before

opening it. 

-4-
Ms. Ramsey also told officers that Defendant stored firearms in a

neighbor’s shed. The neighbor took the officers to the shed and unlocked it for

them. Inside the shed was a long plastic rifle case, which contained two rifles. 

B. Judicial Proceedings

Defendant was charged with two counts of being a felon in possession of a

firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—one count for the revolver found in the bag,

and one count for the two rifles found in the shed. Defendant moved to suppress

much of the evidence, including the revolver found in the black bag. The district

court denied the motion. With regard to the revolver, it ruled that Ms. Ramsey’s

consent to search was voluntary and that she had actual and apparent authority to

consent. 

The jury found Defendant guilty on Count One (the revolver) but not guilty

on Count Two (the two rifles). In computing Defendant’s offense level under the

Sentencing Guidelines, the district court began with a base offense level of 14,

see USSG § 2K2.1(a)(6), and added a 2-level enhancement for possession of three

or more firearms, see id. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A), a 2-level enhancement because a

firearm was stolen, see id. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) and a 4-level enhancement for use or

possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense, see id.

§ 2K2.1(b)(6), resulting in a total offense level of 22. Given Defendant’s

criminal-history level of VI, his guideline sentencing range was 84-105 months. 

See id. ch. 5, pt. A. The court imposed a sentence of 94 months.

-5-
II. ANALYSIS

A. The Search

The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits a police officer from searching

a home without a warrant. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181 (1990). A

warrantless search may be valid, however, if the officer has the voluntary consent

of either the owner or a third party with actual or apparent authority. See id. at

181, 186–89. The government in this case relies on the consent of Ms. Ramsey to

justify the search of Defendant’s trailer. 

Defendant challenges the search on the grounds that Ms. Ramsey’s consent

was not voluntary and that she lacked authority to consent to the search of the bag

in which the firearm was found. “When reviewing a district court’s denial of a

motion to suppress, [we] consider the totality of the circumstances and view[] the

evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” United States v. Andrus,

483 F.3d 711, 716 (10th Cir. 2007). “We accept the district court’s factual

findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” Id. “Consideration of witness

credibility, the weight given to evidence, and reasonable inferences drawn from

evidence are within the district court’s province as the fact-finder.” Id. The

validity of consent is reviewed de novo. See id. 

Although Defendant raises some arguments based on evidence elicited at

trial, we will consider only the evidence before the district court at the

suppression hearing. Because “the district court should have the first opportunity

-6-
to correct its mistake,” we ordinarily “will not consider trial evidence which

undermines a district court decision rendered at a pretrial suppression hearing.” 

United States v. Parra, 2 F.3d 1058, 1065 (10th Cir. 1993). The district court

may consider trial testimony if the defendant renews the suppression motion at

trial, see id., but the court ordinarily need not do so if counsel fails to alert the

court to how the evidence has been altered or supplemented at trial and why the

change would affect the ruling. Absent exceptional circumstances that would

justify relief for plain error, the court has no responsibility on its own to compare

trial evidence with the evidence at the hearing and then analyze whether its prior

ruling should stand. See id.; United States v. Humphrey, 208 F.3d 1190, 1204

(10th Cir. 2000) (if trial testimony would support a different legal justification for

suppressing evidence, the defendant must inform the trial court of that new

justification in renewing suppression motion at trial); cf. United States v. Burke,

633 F.3d 984, 987–88 (10th Cir. 2011) (failure to include a particular argument in

a pretrial suppression motion waives the argument on appeal); Sorensen v. City of

Aurora, 984 F.2d 349, 355 (10th Cir. 1993) (failure to raise specific objection to

district court’s exclusion of evidence precluded review on appeal). 

In this case Defendant renewed his motion twice at trial but the renewals

were perfunctory. See, e.g., R., Vol. 2 pt. 2 at 285 (“I would like to renew that

objection, your Honor, and ask that the Court reconsider the admission of the

firearms.”). Defendant did not so much as hint that he believed he had a ground

-7-
for suppression that had not been fully vetted at the suppression hearing. The

renewals of Defendant’s motion at trial therefore can be ignored on appeal, and

Defendant does not (and could not) argue plain error.2

 Thus, we address only the

record from the suppression hearing, as we now turn to Defendant’s two

challenges to the validity of Ms. Ramsey’s consent. 

1. Voluntariness

Whether consent was voluntary is a question of fact based on the totality of

the circumstances. See United States v. Silva-Arzeta, 602 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th

Cir. 2010). Defendant points to several circumstances that, in his view,

demonstrate involuntariness: Ms. Ramsey initially refused consent to the search;

she was upset; she feared getting in trouble if she did not cooperate; she had used

methamphetamine earlier that day; she had made several inconsistent statements

about her consent; and the officer falsely told her that Defendant had been found

with a gun. 

2

We further note the special difficulties that arise when a motion to

suppress is renewed at trial. If the motion is granted during trial, the government

cannot appeal, see United States v. Brooks, 438 F.3d 1231, 1240 (10th Cir. 2006),

so it should ordinarily be granted only postverdict (assuming a conviction). See

United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1, 3–4 (1976) (government may appeal

postconviction order suppressing evidence because no further factual proceedings

relating to guilt or innocence would be required if the denial were reversed). We

need not decide whether the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (particularly

Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C)) permit the renewal at trial of a pretrial motion to

suppress.

-8-
The district court, however, could properly view the evidence differently

and draw different inferences. It found that Ms. Ramsey was initially hesitant to

talk to the officers but that this hesitancy ended when she learned that Defendant

was in custody, which comforted her that he would not later return to repeat his

abuse. The court recognized that Ms. Ramsey was emotional, but found that she

was relieved by what the officers told her and that the general tone of the

encounter was positive. Regarding her use of methamphetamine, the court noted

that she had not smoked that afternoon, she did not think she was high, and she

appeared to understand what she was consenting to. The court found further

support for the voluntariness of the consent from her remaining with the officers

in the trailer during the search, her providing additional information to them

during the search, and her signing a written consent form. It also noted that the

officers did not draw their guns or raise their voices. And although Defendant

emphasizes evidence indicating Ms. Ramsey’s lack of credibility, the district

court could rationally credit her testimony. See Andrus, 483 F.3d at 716 (witness

credibility is a matter for the fact-finder). The court did not specifically address

Defendant’s concern that the officers falsely told Ms. Ramsey that he had been

found with a weapon, but Defendant has not argued why that false statement

would have influenced Ms. Ramsey’s decision whether to grant consent. 

-9-
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and

considering the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the district court’s

finding of voluntary consent was not clearly erroneous. 

2. Authority to Consent

The district court concluded that Ms. Ramsey had both actual and apparent

authority to consent to the search of the bag containing the firearm. We hold that

Ms. Ramsey had apparent authority to consent to the search. Hence, we do not

need to decide whether she had actual authority. But because apparent authority

exists when the officer reasonably believes that the consenter has actual authority

to consent, see Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 186, 188, we must discuss the nature of

actual authority to assess apparent authority. 

One has authority to consent if she “possess[es] common authority over or

other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.” 

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). 

Common authority . . . rests . . . on mutual use of the property by

persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so

that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has

the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others

have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the

common area to be searched. 

Id. n.7; accord Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 181. Common authority over a residence

does not necessarily imply common authority over all locations or objects within

the residence. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 112 (2006) (“[W]hen it

-10-
comes to searching through bureau drawers, there will be instances in which even

a person clearly belonging on premises as an occupant may lack any perceived

authority to consent.”). But a court will not “engage in . . . metaphysical

subtleties” in determining the boundaries of common authority. Frazier v. Cupp,

394 U.S. 731, 740 (1969). In Frazier the defendant and his cousin jointly used a

duffel bag that had been left in the cousin’s home. See id. The Court upheld the

cousin’s authority to consent to a search of the entire duffel bag, rejecting as

irrelevant the defendant’s claim that his cousin had actual permission to use only

one compartment in the bag. See id. 

Here, the officers were reasonable in believing that Ms. Ramsey was a joint

occupant with common authority over the premises. They saw her at the trailer

during their original surveillance before apprehending Defendant. When they

returned to the residence less than two hours later, Ms. Ramsey answered the

door. They talked to her for 10 to 15 minutes, during which she told them that

she lived there with her boyfriend, Christopher. Defendant argues that the

officers should have questioned whether she was a permanent resident because

they saw her putting “belongings, clothing, [and] things of that nature” in her car

during their original surveillance. Aplt. Br. at 16 (quoting from Rep.’s Tr. Mot.

[to Suppress] Hr’g at 48, R., Vol 1 pt. 2 at 417). But before the officers entered

the trailer, she had told them that she kept personal items, personal hygiene items,

and clothing in the trailer. In our view, she had told the officers enough to show

-11-
an intimate relationship closely akin to that of a husband and wife for purposes of

assessing common authority. See United States v. Penney, 576 F.3d 297, 308 (6th

Cir. 2009) (“We have confirmed a number of times that a live-in girlfriend has

common authority over the premises wherein she cohabits with a boyfriend,” even

though in the case at hand “the relationship was known to be turbulent and the

couple did not cohabit uninterruptedly.”). 

Defendant further contends that officers should have investigated further

because of Ms. Ramsey’s emotional state and her initial refusals to give consent. 

We disagree. Although her emotional state and initial refusals might be relevant

to whether consent was voluntary, Defendant does not explain why these

circumstances undermine her apparent authority. We are also unpersuaded by

Defendant’s argument that Ms. Ramsey’s lack of credibility defeats the officers’

reasonable belief in her authority. After all, the district court ultimately found

her testimony credible—ample support for its implicit finding that the officers

could have reasonably credited what she said. 

Defendant’s best argument is that even if Ms. Ramsey had common

authority over the trailer, she lacked authority to consent to a search of the bag

containing the gun. But we reject this argument as well. The bag was a zipper

bag lying on the living room floor next to the couch, hardly an object shouting

“Do Not Enter.” In light of the relationship between Defendant and Ms. Ramsey,

the officers could reasonably believe that he had “assumed the risk,” Matlock, 415

-12-
U.S. at 171 n.7, that she might look in the bag for missing items (such as a

computer, a magazine, a CD, or even a gun) or, more pertinent to our case, allow

someone else to examine the contents. As Frazier teaches, when general

authority is present, we should not look for “metaphysical subtleties” to define

the boundaries of that authority. 394 U.S. at 740. A leading treatise makes that

point as follows:

Frazier intimates that under the assumption of risk portion of the

Matlock formula the risk may extend somewhat beyond that portion

of the premises which by practice or agreement the other occupant

generally uses. A protected expectation of privacy may exist where

the defendant has taken some special steps to protect his personal

effects from the scrutiny of others, but does not unquestionably exist

where the co-occupant has ready access (perhaps not theretofore

exercised) to the place searched. 

4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.3(f), at 168–69 (4th ed. 2004)

(footnotes omitted). Defendant certainly took no “special steps” to protect the

bag from scrutiny. 

These considerations have special weight in the context of two persons

living together in an intimate relationship. Such a relationship bespeaks a

significant sacrifice of individual privacy. As the same treatise states:

[T]he question is not whether the object seized was a personal effect

of the nonconsenting spouse, but rather whether the object was kept

in a place devoted to his exclusive use. Where, for example, the

husband places a medical kit on an open pantry shelf, the wife may

consent to a search of the kit notwithstanding the fact it is a personal

possession of the husband purchased by him with his own money for

his own use, and this is so whatever the husband’s subjective

expectations as to his exclusive use of the medical kit.

-13-
Id. at 194 (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted).

The principal opinion relied on by Defendant, United States v. SalinasCano, 959 F.2d 861 (10th Cir. 1992), does not persuade us otherwise. In that

case we held that the lessor of an apartment lacked authority to consent to the

search of the suitcase of a boyfriend who spent about two nights a week there. 

See id. at 865. But the officers in that case knew that the suitcase belonged to the

defendant alone. See id. And, more importantly, the couple, by spending five

nights a week in separate residences, had shown that at least one of them desired

her (or his) “space” and the resulting privacy. Thus, the court analyzed that case

as a typical one in which a host was consenting to the search of an object owned

by a guest. See, e.g., id. at 863 (citing standard for host to consent to search of

guest’s private container). The guest/host relationship is far different from that of

a couple living together in an intimate relationship. 

The more pertinent precedent of this court is White v. United States, 444

F.2d 724 (10th Cir. 1971). The search took place in a motel room occupied by a

man and woman holding themselves out as husband and wife. Although the

defendant acknowledged that his girlfriend could consent to the search of the

room, he argued that she lacked authority to consent to the search of a cloth

zipper bag in the room, which contained, among other things, travelers checks and

false identification used as evidence against him. See id. at 725–26. We

disagreed, specifically distinguishing a case involving the search of the

-14-
belongings of an overnight guest, see United States v. Poole, 307 F. Supp. 1185

(E.D. La. 1969), and noting that the girlfriend had been left “in complete charge

of the motel [room] and its contents, that she held herself out as his wife to the

officers, and that she neither objected to the search of the bag nor indicated to

them in any way that it was exclusively appellant’s property,” White, 444 F.2d at

726. As in White, the officers here were reasonable in believing that Ms. Ramsey

had the requisite authority over an unlocked bag in the common area. 

B. Enhanced Sentence for Acquitted Conduct

Defendant contends that it was improper for the district court to increase

his offense level based on his possession of firearms found in his neighbor’s shed

because the jury acquitted him of the charge of possessing those firearms. He

concedes that under United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997), there is no

double-jeopardy impediment to a sentencing judge finding a fact by the

preponderance of the evidence even though the jury was not convinced beyond a

reasonable doubt. But he argues that “relying on acquitted conduct violated the

Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.” Aplt. Br. at 28. 

We disagree. The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is not implicated

by judicial fact finding under a discretionary sentencing regime. See Rita v.

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 352 (2007) (Sixth Amendment is violated by

increase in sentence based on judicial fact finding only if the governing law

“forbids a judge to increase a defendant’s sentence unless the judge finds facts

-15-
that the jury did not find (and the offender did not concede).”). “[W]hen a district

court makes a determination of sentencing facts by a preponderance test under the

now-advisory Guidelines, it is not bound by jury determinations reached through

application of the more onerous reasonable doubt standard.” United States v.

Magallanez, 408 F.3d 672, 685 (10th Cir. 2005) (rejecting Sixth Amendment

claim). 

C. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Finally, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that

most of the evidence tying Defendant to the handgun came from Ms. Ramsey,

who lacks credibility. “We review sufficiency of the evidence challenges de

novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” 

United States v. Parada, 577 F.3d 1275, 1283 (10th Cir. 2009). “We reverse only

if no rational jury could have found each element of the crime beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Id. In particular, credibility determinations are the province

of the jury and are “virtually unreviewable on appeal.” United States v. VirgenChavarin, 350 F.3d 1122, 1134 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks

omitted). An appellate court can disregard a witness’s testimony only if “it is

unbelievable on its face”—that is, if it asserts “facts that the witness physically

could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the

laws of nature.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). That not being the

situation here, we reject Defendant’s argument. 

-16-
III. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

-17-