FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 1, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 14175 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o ck etN o . 0 6 -6 0 3 4 4 -C R -W JZ 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 H N N Y O L B E L , 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 S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 1, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T hi s i s J oh nn y O l bel ’ s app ea l of hi s c on vi ct i on s f or po ss es si ng cr ac k2

c oc a i ne w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e i t , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , a nd for posse ss i ng a f

i re arm as a c on vi ct ed fe l on , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). I. O lb e l f ir s t c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s th e e v id e n c e o f th e d ru g s a n d th e f

ir e a r m th a t w e r e f

o u n d in h is v e h ic le w h e n h e w a s a r r e s te d .

“ [T ] he general rul e i n the cr i m i nal cont exti s thatw arra nt l es s s ea rc hes a re per s e unreas on abl e und erthe F ou rth A m endm ent

— subj ec ton l y t o a fe w s pe c i f i c a l l y e s t a bl i s he d a nd w e l l - de l i ne a t e d e xc e pt i ons . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G onz a l e z , 71 F . 3d 819, 825 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . O ne of thos e e xc e pt i ons i s f

ora s e a r c h i nc i de ntt o a l a w f ul arre st , U ni t ed S t at es v. B ai l ey , 69 1 F . 2d 10 09 , 10 18 (11t h C i r. 19 82 ), w hi ch i nc l ude s the r i ghtt o s e a r c h a ve hi c l e oc c upi e d by the a r r e s t e e , N e w Y or k v. B el t on , 45 3 U . S . 45 4, 46 0, 10 1 S . C t . 28 60 , 28 64 (198 1). U nd erthatexce pt i on an offi ce r m ay se ar ch a vehi cl e the arre st ee has r ec ent l y occ up i ed even i f the offi ce r fi rs tm akes cont ac tw i th h i m af t erhe has e xi t ed the vehi cl e. T ho rnt on v. U ni t ed S ta te s , 5 4 1 U .S . 6 1 5 , 6 1 7 , 6 2 3

– 2 4 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 2 1 2 7 , 2 1 2 9 , 2 1 3 2 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d et erm i ni ng thatthe se ar ch of O l bel ’ s c ar w as a l aw ful se ar ch i nci dentt o h i s a rr es t . T he court ’ s f i nd i ng s thatO l bel w as3

arrest ed al m o sti m m ed i at el y aft er ex i t i n g h i s v eh i cl e an d th atth e o ffi cers approached him w hen h e w as w i thi n cl ose physi ca l prox i m i ty t o i tar e s up po rt ed by the t es t i m on y a nd no tcl ea rl y e rr on eous. T he arre st i ng offi ce rs al so t es t i fi ed tha tthe y s a w O l be l w i th m a r i j ua na i n pl a i n s i ghtbe f

or e the y appr oa c he d hi m a nd thaton e of them kn ew fr om hi s e ar l i ercont ac tw i th O l bel thathe had a suspended dr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e . T he r e w a s no F our th A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on. II. O l be l a l s o c ont e nds tha the i s e nt i t l e d t o a ne w tr i a l be c a us e the gove r nm e nt f a i l e d t o pr ovi de hi m a c c e s s t o pot e nt i a l l y e xc ul pa t or y e vi de nc e a s r e qui r e d by B r a d y v . M a r y la n d , 3 7 3 U .S . 8 3 , 8 3 S . C t. 1 1 9 4 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . T h e e v id e n c e a t is s u e is th e g o v e r n m e n t’s k n o w le d g e th a t s o m e o n e o th e rth a n O lb e l o w n e d th e v e h ic le f r om w hi c h the drugs a nd f i r e a r m w e r e s e i z e d a nd tha tthe ow ne rha d gi ve n the v e h ic le to O lb e l b e f

o r e h is a r r e s t. T he r e w a s no B r a dy vi ol a t i on be c a us e O l be l s ur e l y kne w tha the w a s notthe ow ne rof the ve hi c l e a nd how he ha d c om e t o be i n i t . T he gove r nm e nti s not r e q u ir e d to d is c lo s e to a d e f e n d a n t a f

a c t th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t a lr e a d y k n o w s o rc o u ld a s c e r t a i n w i th r e a s ona bl e di l i ge nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N e w t on, 44 F . 3d 913, 918 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . N otonl y tha t , butO l be l ha s a l s o f a i l e d t o s how tha tthe f

a c tthe vehi cl e he w as dri vi ng atthe t i m e of hi s a rr es tw as ow ned b y s om eone el se w asOlbe l alsoc ontend s th at hi s sentenc ewa s “un c on sti tution al”in l ight o f t hedispa rity 1 be tw e e n s e ntenc e s f

or po sse ssi on

of po wde r c oc aineand

c rac k c oc aine . Wede c lin eto re a c h this contention bec ause O lbel abandone d it by only mentioning it in passingand providingno citations to any

authority to support his argument. See United States v. Gupta , 463 F.3d 1182, 1195 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2446 (2007); Gre enbria r, Ltd. v. City

of Alaba ster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 1989). 4 m a t e r i a l i n the B r a dy s e ns e . S e e i d. 1 AF F I RME D.