FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 19, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 62 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 9- cr-0 04 31 -BAE-GRS- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ver su s ERIC LAVONNE SMALLS, 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 Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 19 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Eric Lavo nn e Sm al ls ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o

supp res s ev id en ce an d h is si xty -fi ve -m on th sen te nc e im po se d a fte r he pl edgu il ty to th e o ffen se of p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a con vi ct edfel on . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Sm al ls arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce s ei zedfro m

hi s au to m ob il e aft er h e was st op pe d b y Sav an na h- Ch atha m Co un ty Metro po li ta n P ol ic e Offi cer J oh n M cNam ara f or vi ol at in g ast at e st atut e pr oh ib it in g a m

pl ifi cat io n o f so un d fr om an y “ m ech an ic al so un d- m ak in g d ev ic e” i n a m ot orve hi cl e so th atth e so un d b eco m es “pl ai nl y au di bl e ata di st an ce o f 10 0 feetor m or e fro m

th e m ot orve hi cl e.” Ga. Co de Ann . § 4 0- 6- 14 (a). 1 The Fo urth Am en dm en t t o t he Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n p ro hi bi ts

“ un reas on ab le sea rch es an d s ei zu res .” U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. With in th e li m it at io ns im

po se d b y th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, a p ol ic e o ffi cer “ m ay st op a ve hi cl e whe n t he re i s p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th atth e driv er i s v io la ti ng [an ] ap pl ic ab le tra ffi c [o r] equ ip m en t re gu la ti on [] relat in g t o t he op erat io n o f m ot or

Offic er McNamar a testified that he stopped Smalls to enforce both the statute and a 1 local ordina

nce pr ohibiting loud music from a motor ve hicle, howe ver, be cause the g overnme nt relies on the statute and does not spec ify what ordina

nce McNamar a wa s enfor cing , we a ddress McNamara ’s authority

to effe ctuate the stop for a violation of the statute only . 2ve hi cl es .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Spo erk e, 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 09 )

(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Here, Sm al ls co nt en ds th atMcNam ara l ack edpro babl e cau se to st op hi m for a v io la ti on of t he st atut e b ecau se th ere was no sp eci fic tes ti m on y at t he supp res si on he ari ng th atOffic er Mc Nam ara was lo cat edm or e th anon e-h un dr ed feetaway when he he ardth e so un d e m it te d fr om Sm al ls ’ ve hi cl e. Howev er, ev en if Off ic er Mc Nam ara was po si ti on edm or e th anon e-h un dr edfeetaway , “ [a] traf fic st op ba se d o n a n o ffi cer’s i nc orrectbu t re as on ab le ass es sm en t o f fac ts do es no t vi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t” pro vi de d t ha t t he “ m is ta ke of f actwas reas on ab le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cha nt ha so ux at , 34 2 F .3d12 71 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Offic er Mc Nam ara t es ti fie d a t t he supp res si on he ari ng th athe he arda lo ud

“ th um pi ng ” so un d c om in g fr om th e rad io inSm al ls ’ au to m ob il e whe n Off ic er McNa m ara was lo cat edon e b lo ckaway fro m Sm al ls , andth athe he ardth e au to m ob il e b efo re h e sa w it . A reaso nabl e o ffi cer i n Off ic er Mc Nam ara’s p os it io n co ul d h av e b el ie ve d tha t the m us ic was aud ib le m or e th anon e-h un dr edfeetaway on th e b as is of t he se ob se rv at io ns . Becau se an y m is ta ke of f

actby O ffi cer McNa m ara i n e va lu at in g h is di st an ce fro m Sm al ls ’ car was th us a reas on ab le on e, he di d n otvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t wh enhe st op pe d S m al ls forvi ol at io n o f th e n oi se st atut e. See Il li no is v. Ro dr ig ue z, 49 7 U.S. 1 77 , 18 5 (1 99 0) (“ Wha t i s 3ge ne ral ly dem an de d o f th e m an y factua l d et erm in at io ns th atm us t re gu la rly be m ad e b y ag en ts of the go ve rn m en t . . . is no t t ha t t he y alway s b e co rrec t, b utth at th ey alwa y s b e rea so nabl e.”). Inch al le ng in g h is sen te nc e, Sm al ls arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin ap pl y in g afou r-l ev el en ha nc em en t fo r us e o r po ss es si on of afir earm “ in co nn ect io n wi th an ot he r fel on y off en se ,” se e U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 ) (2 01 0) , bas ed up on it s fi nd in g t ha t, atth e ti m e o f hi s arres t, Sm al ls was i nv ol ve d i n c omm it ti ng th e fel on y

off en se of p os se ss in g m ari

juan a with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te it , see 18 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) -(b )(1 )(D). Sm al ls arg ue s t hi s was erro ne ou s b ecau se , he 2 as se rts , th e ev id en ce was m or e co ns is te ntwit h p ers on al us e o f m ari juan a th anwit h di st rib ut io n o f it . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs for cle ar erro r, se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Bla s, 3 60 F.3d12 68 , 12 72 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ), an d we m ay rev ers e on ly if “ aft er re vi ewin g a ll of t he ev id en ce,” we a re l eftwit h “ a d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Rod rig ue zLop ez, 3 63 F.3d11 34 , 11 37 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . This finding doe s not give rise to an Appr endi violation beca use the sente nce imposed 2 was within the ten-year

statutory maxi mum punishm ent for violation of 18 U .S.C. § 922(g) (1), to which Smalls pled guilty . See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a) (2); B lakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004) ( “[T] he ‘statutory

maxi mum’ for Appr endi purposes is the maximum s entenc e a judg e may impose solely

on the basis of the f

acts re flec ted in the jury

verdic t or admitted by

the defe ndant.”) (empha sis omit ted). 4Hav in g re vi ewedall of the ev id en ce t o wh ic h t he pa rti es refe r us , we fin d n o c le ar 3 erro r inth e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Sm al ls was e ng ag edin di st rib ut in g m ari juan a atth e ti m e o f hi s p os se ss io n o f th e h an dg un . Fi na ll y , Sm al ls co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g h im cred it fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y in co m pu ti ng hi s o ffen se lev el . See U.S.S.G. § 3E1 .1(a ) (2 01 0) . “ The di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f whe th er a d efen dantis en ti tl edto a reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y is a fi nd in g o f fac t t ha t i s en ti tl edto gre atde fere nc e o n app eal an d wi ll no t b e d is tu rb edun le ss cle arl y erro ne ou s.” Un it edSta te s v . Carab al lo , 59 5 F .3d12 14 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Here, th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d S m al ls a reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity be cau se Sm al ls tes te d p os it iv e fo r co cai ne us ag e dur in g h is pre -tr ia l re le as e. See Un it edSta te s v . Pace, 1 7 F .3d34 1, 34 3 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 4) (affi rm in g d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t d efen da nt ’s il le ga l drug us e whi le on pre -tr ia l re le as e was in co ns is te ntwith a ccep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y ). Alt ho ug h S m al ls pro du cedth e res ul ts of adru g t es t ad m in is te red The district cour

t’s findingwas ba sed on testimony at the sente ncinghearing a nd 3 information in Smalls’ presentenc ing r eport whic h showed that, a t the time of his offense , Smalls was in possession of seve nty -one grams of ma rijuana, dr

ugpara pherna lia, and numer ous small bag g ies that the cour

t found are ty

pically used to distribute marijuana, a nd that Smalls had a prior rec ord of c onviction for a dr ug -distribution offense. A lthough Smalls argues that some of this evidenc e wa s consistent with personal use, that Smalls may have use d some of the marijuana himself does not nec essar ily neg ate that he also distributed it, and theref ore this asser

tion alone does not rende r the district cour t’s findingclea

rly err oneous. 5by a pri va te lab in whi ch he tes te d n eg at iv e, th e d is tri ctco urt cr ed it edth e

go ve rn m en t’s t es t b ecau se itwas c on du ct edby a lab th atis cert ifi edby the go ve rn m en t an d t ha t t ak es pre cau ti on s t o p rev en t a f al se po si ti ve res ul t. The di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to cred itth e p os it iv e te stres ul t was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s on it s fa ce, an d S m al ls po in ts us to no ad di ti on al ev id en ce t ha t ca ll s t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g i nt o q ue st io n. AFFIRMED

6