T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. JA M E S D A V ID A L L E N , II , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30244 D . C . N o. 2: 10 -c r- 00 32 2-T S Z -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on T hom a s S . Z i l l y , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J ul y10, 2012 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , R E IN H A R D T , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jam es D av i d A l l en , II, ap p eal s th e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n t o su p p ress st at em en t s, th e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n t o su p p ress ev i d en ce (w h i ch i n cl u d es a req u est for a Franks h e a r in g ) , a n d th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d f o llo w in g h is c o n d itio n a l g u ilty



# FI LED JU L 24 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

p l e at o F e l o n i n P o s s e s s i o n o f aF i r e a rm , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . He w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 60 m onths i n pr i s on. A s to h is s ta te m e n ts , A lle n a r g u e s th a t th e yf o llo w e d th e in itia l s w e e p o f h is hom e , w hi c h oc c urr e d w hi l e A l l e n w a s s t andi ng out s i de a nd w hi c h the gove rnm e nt c onc e de s w a s unc ons t i tut i ona l . T he s t a t e m e nt s m us tthe r e f or e be s uppr e s s e d, U ni ted States v. Sh etler , 66 5 F . 3d 11 50 , 11 57 -58 (9th C i r. 20 11 ), and A l l en m ay w i thdr a w hi s c ondi t i ona l pl e aon r e m a nd. A s t o the t a ngi bl e e vi de nc e , A l l e n a r gue s tha ti tw a s s e i z e d pur s ua ntt o a w arrantbase d o n an aff i davi tthatdi d n otsupp ortprob abl e c as e. W e f i nd that p r o b ab le c au s e e x is te d o n th e f a c e o f th e a f f id a v it, e v e n w ith A lle n ’s s ta te m e n ts exci se d, because the w i tness up on w ho m the af fi davi tre l i ed, Je ss i kah R am se y, had f ir s t- h a n d k n o w le d g e o f

th e ille g a l a c tiv itya n d h e rs ta te m e n ts p r o v id e d p r o b ab le c au s e . See U

ni ted States v. Mi l ler , 75 3 F . 2d 14 75 , 14 80 (9th C i r. 19 85 ). W e, ho w ever , grantA l l en’ s r equestfor a Franks h e a r in g . H e h a s p r o p e r ly a l l e ge d tha tthe pol i c e know i ngl yorr e c kl e s s l yw i thhe l d m a t e r i a l i nf orm a t i on f

r om th e a f f id a v it th a t, if

in c lu d e d , w o u lds u f

f ic ie n tlyu n d e rm in e R a m s e y ’s r e liab ilityto v itia te p r o b ab le c au s e . Fra n ks v. D ela w a re , 43 8 U . S . 15 4 (19 78 ); U ni ted States v. S ta n ert , 7 6 2 F .2 d 7 7 5 , 7 8 0 - 8 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) , am ended , 76 9 F . 2d 14 10 (9th C i r. 19 85 ). T he r e c or d s how s tha tthe of f i c e rw ho pr e pa r e d the a f f i da vi t , B e tt s , kne w or3

sh o u l d h av e k n o w n th atR am sey’ s p en d i n g cri m i n al ch arg e fo r m ak i n g fal se s t a t e m e nt s t o the pol i c e w a s f orf a l s e l ya c c us i ng A l l e n of c r i m i na l c onduc t ; the r e c o r d a ls o s h o w s th a t a n o f f ic e r , V a n d e r W e y s t, w h o s u p p lie d B e tts w ith i n fo rm at i o n reg ard i n g R am sey fo r th e affi d av i tw as aw are th atR am sey’ s fal se s ta te m e n ts r e la te d to A lle n . T h e o f f ic e r s a ls o k n e w b u t o m itte d f r o m th e a f

f id a v it vari ou s i ncon si st enci es i n R am se y’ s s t ory: thatshe c hang ed her s t ory a s t o w hen gu nsho t s w er e f

i re d; thatshe w as hi gh on m etham ph et am i ne atthe t i m e of her i nt e rvi e w ; tha ts he di d notf l e e A l l e n’ s hom e f

e a r i ng f orhe rl i f e ; a nd tha ts he hi d a b ackp ackfi l l ed w i th d ru g p arap h ern al i a a sh o rtd i st an ce fro m A l l en ’ s h o m e j u st b efo re th e p o l i ce arrived . T h ese o m i ssi o n s “ su g g est [] th e p o ssi b i l i ty th at[R am sey] w ou l d l i e t o the po l i ce t o fra m e an i nn ocentm an [here , A l l en] ” U ni ted States v. H a ll , 113 F . 3d 157, 160 ( 9th C i r . 1997) , a nd tha the rm os tr e c e ntr e portr e ga r di ng A l l en w as no tre l i abl e. W e there fore re m and for a Franks he a r i ng. A s t o s e n t e n c i n g , A l l e n a r g u e s th a tth e e n h a n c e me n tf o ras t o l e n f

i r e a rm, U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 4) ( A ) , c a nnotbe appl i e d t o hi m be c aus e he ha d no know l e dge th a t th e g u n w a s s to le n . T h e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s d ir e c tlyf o r e c lo s e th is arg u m en t . § 2 K 2 . 1 cm t . n . 8 (ex p l ai n i n g th atth e en h an cem en t“ ap p l i es reg ard l ess of w hether the defendantkn ew or had reas on t o b el i eve thatthe fi re arm w as4

st ol en”) . A l l en’ s c orol l ary c hal l enge based on the D ue P roce ss C l ause w as re j ec t ed i n U n ite d S ta te s v . G o o de ll , 99 0 F . 2d 49 7, 49 9-50 1 (9th C i r. 19 93 ). R EVER SED i n pa rt , a nd R EM A N D ED in p a rt.