FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT OCT 17, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble J ames I . Cohn, United States District Judg e for the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. [ 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. 06- 16597

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 14 -C R -O D E -1 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 P A U L B E A S L E Y , 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 o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 17, 2007) B ef ore C A R N E S and B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O H N , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M:2

P aul B ea sl ey appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on on tw o cou nt s of a rm ed bank robb er y unde r18 U . S . C . § 2113( a ) a nd ( d) a nd tw o c ount s of us e of a f i r e a r m dur i ng a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) a nd ( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) . H e a ppe a l s on the grou nd s thata s ea rc h o f hi s hom e w as exec ut ed pu rs uantt o an i nv al i d sea rc h w arran t ; th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred i n ex cl u d i n g ev i d en ce o f an F B I p ress rel ease w hi c h c ontr a di c t e d the G ove r nm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e a ttr i a l ; a nd tha tF e de r a l R ul e of C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 1 2 .1 is u n c o n s titu tio n a l. W e a f f ir m . F i rst , al th o u g h w e ag ree w i th B easl ey th atth e search w arran ti n th i s case w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t a bl i s h pr oba bl e c a us e t o s e a r c h hi s r e s i de nc e , w e a f f i r m the d e n ia l o f B e a s le y ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s o n th e b a s is o f th e g o o d f

a ith e x c e p tio n to a n in v a lid w a r r a n t e s ta b lis h e d in U .S . v . L e o n , 4 6 8 U .S . 8 9 7 , 9 1 3 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . S e c ond, w e f

i nd no a bus e of

di s c r e t i on i n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on, on the b asi s o f a l ack o f fo u n d at i o n , t o ex cl u d e an F B I ag en t ’ s t est i m o n y, d u ri n g cro ssexam i nat i on , abou tan F B I pre ss re l ea se pert ai ni ng t o a desc ri pt i on of the get -a w ay c a r . T he w i tne s s be i ng e xa m i ne d di d notw r i t e the pr e s s r e l e a s e , nordi d he m a ke th e st at em en tco n t ai n ed w i th i n th e p ress rel ease. H e t est i fi ed th atth e p ress rel ease w as a p ro fo rm a i ssu an ce fro m th e B u reau , an d th o u g h h e w as aw are t h ata p ress r e le a s e w a s is s u e d r e g a r d in g B e a s le y , h e n e v e ra c tu a lly r e a d th e p r e s s r e le a s e u n til h e w a s a s k e d to d o s o b y B e a s le y ’s a tto r n e y .B e a sley a lso argue s th at in su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e wa s p re se nte d at tria l to prov e that a 1 fi re arm wa s p re se nt d

uringthearm e d rob be ri e s und e rlyingtw o o f t hec ounts . B e a sley

c on c e de s, howeve r, that our Circuit pre cedent in U.S. v. Hunt foreclose s his argument. 187 F.3d 1269, 12 71 (1 1th

Cir . 1 99 9) (“ a

§ 9 24 (c ) c onvic tio n ma

y besu staine d b y

lay wi tne ss t e sti mony

that a defendant ca

rried or used a gun”). B easle y

only seeks to argue it herein order to preser ve the issue for subsequent en bancor Supreme Court review. There fore , though w e g enerally consider a def endant’ s challeng e to the suff iciency of the e videncede novo, weneed not c onsider the merits of this argument further . See Hunt, 187 F .3d at 1270. 3 W e a ls o r e

je c t, a s m e r itle s s , B e a s le y ’s a r g u m e n t th a t F e d . R . C r im . P . R u le 1 2 .1 is u n c o n s titu tio n a l. 1 AF F I RME D.