The Ho norab le D an A aron Polster, U nited States District J udg e for the N orthern District of 1 Ohio , s itting by

des ig nation. File Na me: 08a0208n.06 Filed: Apr il 22, 2008

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION NO. 06-2337 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, ) ) P lai nt iff-A ppe lle e , ) AP P EA L F RO M THE D ISTRIC T ) COURT F OR THE E ASTERN v. ) DISTRICT OF MICHIG AN ) SHAWN SL AUG HTER, ) ) Defendan t-Appellant. )

BEFORE: DA UG HTREY and SUTTO N, Circ uit Jud ges; and P OLS TER, District Judge. 1 Dan Aaron P olster, D istrictJudge. Af t er en t er i n g a co n d i t i o n al gu i l t y p l eat o t h e c h ar ge of possession of a f

irea rm during a dru g-traf

ficking crime, Shaw n Slaughte r timely appea led the district court’s de nial of his motions to suppr ess and his motion to dismiss the indictment ba sed on

se le c tiv e pr os e c uti on . F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m. I. On Aug ust 25, 2002, office rs from the City of Detroit Police Depa rtment executed a se arc h

war ran t on the residenc e of Shaw n Slaughte r (“ 19675 Buf falo Stree t”). As a

result of the se arc h,He also m ov ed to sup press the ev idence on the b asis tha t the officers fa iled to k nock and 2 anno unce their p resence before enteringthe hom e. The district court held an e v identiary hearing and de ni ed th e m ot io n re g ar di ngth is c la im , ar ul in g th at S laug ht er

d oe s no t r ai se o n ap pe al

. 2 of fi c e r s r e c o v e r e d a f

i r e ar m an d a b a g c o n t a i n i n g n ar c o t i c s . A f t e r i n i t i a l l y b e i n g c h ar g e d i nsta te court, S laug hter’s case was refer red for federa l prosecution under the Project Safe Neig hborhoods prog ram. On O ctober

24, 2003, a federa l g rand jury char g ed S laug hter with possession of coc aine with intent to dis tribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) , possession of a fir ear m by a convic ted fe lon in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 2( g )( 1) , a nd po ssessi on of a

fi re arm duri nga dr ugc ri me in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Ove r the c ourse of his pr osecution, Slaughte r filed thre e motions

re le va nt t o th is a

pp e a l. First, Slau gh t er m oved to suppress the e vidence seized during the execution of the sea rch

wa rr ant b e c a us e, amo ng ot he r t

hin g s, the a ff

ida vit su pp or tin g the se arc h w a

rr ant l a c ke d p ro ba

ble

cause . I n the aff

idavit, O ffice r L y

nn Moore swore to the following fac ts suppor ting t h e i s s u ance 2 of the wa rr a nt: 1. ) Th e Af

fi ant is a sw or

n me mbe r of the De tr oit Pol ic e De pa rtme nt, curr ent ly assig ned to th e N ar c o ti c s D iv is io n w o r k in g in c o n

ju n c ti o n w it

h a c r e d ib le and re lia ble SOI #2 07 3 r e g ard ingthe sa le of ill e g a l na

rc oti c s fr om [ 19 675 B uf fa lo Street]. I nformation fr om SOI #2073 has led to the seizure of narc otics, narc otics pro cee ds, narc otics para

pherna lia and fire arms. SOI #2073 has bee n used by the Affia nt and other me mbers of the Detroit Police Na rcotics Division on over 3 occa sions resulting in over 5 arr est[s] for Violation of Controlled Substanc e Ac t and other off enses, a nd over 2 c onviction’s [si c] in 3 Circuit C o urt and 36 District rd th Court s, wi th c a se s st ill pe nd ingin 3 6 Di str ic t Co ur t and 3 Cir c uit

Court

. th rd 2.) On 08/24/02, Aff

iant met with SOI #2073 to formulate a pl an to attempt to make a contr olled purcha se of Na rcotics from the above- descr ibed location. The SOI was sear ched f

or money and drug s with none being found and issued a s u m of Secr et Service Funds with which to attempt to m ake the purcha se. The A ffiant then ob se rv e d th e SOI

e nte r t he targ e t loc a tio n, sta

y a sh or t ti me , a nd the n r e tur

n d ir e c tly to the Affia

nt. The S OI

turned ove r a qua

ntity of suspec ted coc aine, whic h the SOI stated (s)he purcha sed at the a bove-de scribed loc ation and from the above- descr ibed3

sellers with the issued S ecr et S ervic e Funds provided. The SOIwas a g ain sea rche d for money

and drug s with none being found. 3.) The suspe cted c ocaine was th en conve y ed to the Na rcotics Sec tion where a preliminary

analy sis was perf

ormed by P.O. Ger ald P arke r, where the test indicated positive for the pre sence of coc aine. The coca ine was the n place d into L SF #508923. 4.) Aff iant has bee n in numerous nar coti c ra i d s in the City of De troit. I n the ov e rw he lmi ngma

jor ity of the se ra ids , fir e arm s and

/or we a po ns we re fo un d u se d to protec t illega l narc otic activity and see k to remove the same. 5. ) T he re fo re , Af

fi ant ha s pr ob a

ble c a us e to b e lie ve that th e a

bo ve lis te d it e ms w ill be found on the premises of the above- descr ibed location. J A 75. Aft er briefing and oral argument, the district court denied the motion. The district court conclude d that the af

fidavit containe d probable cause to searc h the re sidence b ec au se the a ffiant

wo rk ed with a cre dible and reliable source of information (“sour ce” or “SOI ”), there had been a

rec ent drugsale at the targ eted r esidenc e, the a ffiant c orrobor ated the controlled purc hase, a nd it was logic al to assume that if the resident sold drug s from his house, t here would be more drug s at that location. J ust prior to trial, Slaughte r aske d for new counsel on the g round that his attorney was not prepa r e d

. A lt h o u g h th e c o u rt g r an te d th e r e qu e s t, it f o u n d th a t Sl a

u g h te r w a s r e s p o n s ible for obstr u c ti n g his attorney ’s trial pre paration effor ts by deliberately

ref using to c onsult with hi m. Ba sed on this mi sconduct, the district court order ed that Slaug hter be detained pe nding tr ial. Slaughte r asked the court for

permission to take his children home befor e beingdetained. T he cour t gr anted the reque st, but orde red him to repor t to the U.S. Marshal’s Servic e later that day . Slaughte r neve r returne d, beg inning a

n 18-month ody ssey

from justice. After Slaughte r wa s appre hended, he filed a se cond motion to suppress. This time, he ar g ued that the af

fidavit supporting the sea rch w ar ra nt contained f

alse stateme nts beca

use the SOI

never4

came to his house on the date of t h e al l ege d co n trolled purcha se. In support of this contention, Slaughte r off

ere d the af

fidavits of his longtime g irlfriend (Domonique Wil liams), his cousin (L aRon J ordan) and himself – all cla iming that Slaug hter he ld a barbec ue at his residenc e that day and they

never saw any one come to the house to purcha se drug s. Slaughte r soug ht a Franks hear ing on the motion, and an in c am e ra hear ing on the exis tence of SOI#2073 an d the source ’s working relationship wit h the Detr oit Pol ice De partment. The c ourt held a Franks hear ing, dur ing w hich Off icer Moore testified that he was or dere d by Se rg eant F re d Wa

tki ns to i nv e sti g a te the B uf fa lo s tr e e t r e sid e nc e fo r d ru g -t ra ff ic kin g a c tiv ity based on a

complaint filed by

a conc erne d citizen. Office r Moore contac ted a SOI with whom he had pre viously worke d, picked him up, sea rche d him thoroughly

for money

or contra band and f

ound none, drove him to the residence , g ave him $20 to attempt a controlled buy , and observed him enter and exit the house after

which he tur

ned over a bag co ntaining suspe cted c ocaine . Offic er Moor e g ave the SO I $ 4 0 fo r his service s and submitted the suspected c ocaine for f ield testing. O nce the substance te sted positive for coc aine, Moore prepa red the aff

idavit in support of a w arr ant to sear ch the re sid e nc e . In a dd iti on to O ff ic e r M oo re ’s test im on y , th e Go ve rnme nt p ro vid e d d oc ume nts

rec ording the funds g iven to the SOIboth before and af ter the c ontrolled purcha se, t h e interof fice memorandum fr om Serg eant Watkins to Office r Moore detail i n g t h e compl aint made a bout the Buf falo Stree t addre ss, and the coc aine pur chase d by the SOIon Aug ust 24, 2002. Slaughte r’s witnesse s both te stified that, on Aug ust 24, 2002, Slaughte r hosted a ba rbec ue for some f

amily and fr iends. Domonique Will iam s , wh o at that time had a one -month old baby fathe red by

Slaughte r, testified that t h ey we re cele brating her la st day of mater nity leave befor e returningto work. She testified that she spent the better part of the barbecue in the driveway in front5

of the g ara g e (fr om w here she would be able to see someone enter ing the side door) but the ba by was inside the house and she was in and out of the house f or brief periods, as w as Slaug hter. She testified that she did not reme mber see ing a ny strang ers at the house that day

. On cr oss examination, Willi a ms a dmi tte d th a t, a lth ou g h s he kn e w Sl a ug hte r w a s a

fu g iti ve fr om jus tic e and the U. S. Marsha l was looking for him, she did not inform the Mar s h al t h at s h e had contact with Slaug hter

se ve ra l ti me s dur ing his 18 -m on th fl ig ht. I n fa c t, wh e n Slau g hte r w a s st op pe d b y po lic e wh ile sti ll a fug itive and identified himself a s L aRon J ordan, she confirme d this false identification. L aRon J ordan testified that he was at the barbe cue from noon to 9 p.m., althoug h he lef t the party briefly to g o to the store and to visit one of Slaug hter’s ne ighbor s. He testified that he did not

re c a ll s e e ing any str ang e rs a t the ho us e that da y , no r did he ob se rv e ill e g a l na rc oti c s b e ingus e d, so ld or display ed. I n addition to witness testim ony , Slaughte r’s attorney produce d numerous docume nts give n to h im b y pr e vio us c ouns e l w hic h, pr e vio us c ouns e l cla ime d, we re le ft be hin d in Sla ug hte r’ s h ou se by the offic ers e x ecutingthe s ear ch. The doc uments were standardized for feiture notices, laboratory requisitions and pay

ment re ce i p t s – many

of which w ere blank and some of which conta ined information from a

sear ch conduc ted three we ek s ea rl ier. Slaug hter’s attorney argued that the documents showed that Detroit police officer s manufa cture d informants and c ontrolled buy s on the fly when e x ecuting unlawful sear ches. When a sked about these documents, Off icer Moore testified that he ha d n ot s e e n th e m be fo re and did no t kn owwh e re the y

c a me fr om. At the conc lusion of the hearing , the di strict court ordere d the Gover nment to produce SOI # 2073 for a

n in c am e ra hear ing. After some investigation, the Government filed a brief infor ming the cour t that it was unable to produc e th e source bec ause r ecor ds from the De troit Pol ice6

Depa rtment showed that he had bee n deac tivated on J uly 27, 2004. The Gove rnment explained that it wa s the De pa

rtme nt’ s pr a c tic e to d e a c tiv a te tho se so ur c e s w ho ha d b e e n d or ma nt f or six mo nth s. Upon dea ctivation, the source had no obligation to repor t or update his contact infor mation with the po lic e de pa

rtme nt, and

wa s f re e to le a ve the c ity or state

. Th e Go ve rnme nt wa s a lso un a ble to l oc a te the source despite sea

rchingfor h i s l as t known addre ss under thre e sepa rate law enf

orce ment databa ses and c ontacting the s ource ’s brother who had no idea of his wher eabouts. The Gove rnment explained that the source had wor ked for the Police Depa

rtment up to J anuar

y 2004 (i.e., a

y ear and a half afte r Slaug hter wa s arr ested a nd six months afte r S laug hter absconded) , and noted that, had Slaughte r honore d the court’s detention order and made a timely reque st to produce the source , he could have been br oug ht before the cour t. Notwithstanding this turn of events, the c ourt denied the second suppr ession motion. The court c redited the testimony of Off icer Moore that the c ontrolled buy did in fac t occur on Aug ust 24, 2002, and found that the testimony of the defe nse witnesses (spec ifically , that they wer e not beside Slaughte r throug hout the day ) wa s not inconsistent with t hat of Of fice r Moore. Be cause the evidenc e sustained t he verac ity of t he facts providi ng probable cause for the se arc h war rant, the c ourt denied the motion. Finally , Slaughte r filed a

motion to di smiss the indictment for sele ctive prose cution, arguing that a disproportionate number of Afric an Americ ans in Way ne County , Michig an, we re pr osecute d under the fede ral P rojec t Safe Neig hborhoods progra m at what se emed to be the sole discre tion of the state pr os e c uto r. Th is m oti on wa s d e nie d a ft e r a

se ri e s o f h e ari ng s. F oll ow ing the de nia l of Sla ug hte r’ s thr e e mot ion s, he e nte re d a wr itt e n p le a

a g re e me nt w ith the Gover nment wher ein he pled guilty to posse ssion of a firea

rm during a drug -traf

ficking crime.7

Al tho ug h Sl a

ug hte r e xpre ssl y

wa ive d th e ri g ht t o a

pp e a l hi s c on vic tio n in

the wr itt e n

p l e a a g re e me nt, h e r e s e r v e d t h e r i g h tt o a

p p e a l t h e d e n i a l o f

h i s s u p p r e s s i o nm o t i o n s i nt h e f o l l o w i n g c o l l o qu y: TH E CO UR T: Ok ay . Al so , if the Court se nte nc e s y ou

wi th that amount, th en o n pag e five , number seve n, then y ou waive your ri g ht t o a pp e a l. D o y ou

un de rs tand

tha t? TH E D EF EN DA

NT : Y our H on or , I beli e ve the re ’s a condition where Icould appe al the sea rch a nd seizure motion. THE COURT: Okay . So this then would be un d er the provision – MR. MUL CAHY: Yes, Your Honor. TH E CO UR T: – of – tha t is c on ta ine d in the Rul e 11 ? I f n ot, we’ ll just put it on the recor d. MR. MU L CA HY : I t’ s not, Yo ur Ho no r. Ia po log ize fo r t

hat. THE COURT: We’ll just put it on the rec ord. I note th ere have been c onversations relating to it. S o we’ ll go to Rule 11 and we’ ll pick the provision that spe cifica lly applies to it, and that will be Rule 11(a) (2). I t’s entitled “Conditional Plea.” I t say s with consent of the Court and the gove rnment, a D efe ndant may enter a conditional plea of g uilty rese rving in writing, w hich we’ ll put on the re cord, the rig ht to have an a

ppellate court revie w an adver se determination of a sp e c if ie d p re tr ia l mo tio n, and

that w ou ld b e y our mot ion to s up pr e ss; is that c or re c t? THE DEF ENDAN T: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay . Then that will be a condit ion of the ple a , th a t y ou

wi ll b e e nti tle d to a

pp e a l th is m oti on

to s up pr e ss. J A 386-87. Slaug hter wa s therea fter se ntence d to 60 months i n custody al o n g with three y ear s of supervised r elea se. Slaughte r fi l ed a timely

notice of a

ppeal, r aising issues arising from the district cour t’s ruling s denying both his suppre ssion moti ons and his motion to dismiss the indictment for sele ctive8

pr os e c uti on . A s show n in the ple a c oll oq uy a bo ve , how e ve r, Sla

ug hte r did no t re se rv e the ri g ht t o appea l his selec tive prosec ution motion; thus, he is prec luded from raising it now on appea l. United States v. Chon , 210 F. 3 d 9 9 0 , 995 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that appellants wa ived all issues “not

e xpre ssl y re se rv e d f

or a pp e a l” in t

he ir c on dit ion a l g uil ty

ple a s) ; Un ite d S

tat es v . F inn igi n , 113 F.3d 1182, 1183 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that issues not r es er v ed as par t of a c onditional plea ar e

wa ive d) ; c f. U nit e d S tat es v . B e ll , 350 F.3d 534, 535 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that a def endant may not appea l an adve rse r

uling on a motion to suppress unless he has pre serve d the rig ht to do so by enter in g a co nditional guilty plea) . And althoug h Rule 11(a) (2) r equire s that issues reser ved for appea l must be stated in writing, the Gover nment has conse nted to Slaughte r’s ora l reser vation of the rig ht to appeal his suppre ssion moti ons and does not arg ue that he w aived this rig ht by failing to c omp ly wi th t he wr iti ngre qu ir e me nt. II. When evaluatinga district cour t’s ruling on a motion to suppress, the pane l rev iews the

cou rt ’s fact

ua l f ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or

and its le g a l c on c lus ion s de novo

. S e e U n it e d S ta te s v. Frazier , 4 23 F .3 d 5 26 , 5 31 (6 th C ir . 200 5) . The e vid e nc e mus t be vie we d in the lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to the g overnme nt. United States v. Buc hanon , 72 F.3d 1217, 1223 ( 6th Cir. 1995). A. Slaughte r ar g ues that the a ffidavit supporting the sea rch w arr ant lacke d probable cause . The F ourth Amendment to the Unit ed S tates C onstitut ion prohibits the i ssuance of a searc h war rant “but upon proba

ble cause , supported by Oath or a ffirmation.” U.S. C O N ST . ame nd . I V. “ Th e ta sk of the iss uin g ma g istrate is s imp ly to m a ke a pr a c tic a l, co mmo n- se ns e de c isi on wh e the r, g ive n a ll the circ umstances se t forth in the aff idavit be fore him, .

. . there is a fair probability that contra band9

or evide nce of

a cr im e wi l l b e found in a pa rticular pla ce.” United States v. Carpenter , 360 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.C t. 2317, 76 L .Ed.2d 527 (1983))

. A mag istrate judg e’s de termination of proba ble ca use is aff orded g reat defe renc e, and should not be set aside unless it wa s arbitra rily exercised. U.S. v. Yar brough , N o . 0 6

- 2 2 3 3 , 2 0 0 7 WL 4553687, at *3 (6th Cir. Dec . 20, 2007) ( per curiam ) ( citing U

nited States v. Allen , 211 F.3d 970, 973 (6th Cir. 2000) ( en banc )) . Re vie w o f t he su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g pr ob a ble c a us e is limit ed to the i nformation presented in the four c orner s of the af fidavit. United State v. Frazier , 423 F.3d 526, 531 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Her e, S laug hte r

d o e s n o t c h a ll e n g e th e r e li a b il it y o f th e in f o r ma n t a s it is r e c it e d

in the

wa rr an t

. R at h er , ci t i n g United States v. W eave r , 99 F.3d 1372 (6th Cir. 1996) , he argu es t h at t he aff idavit la cks proba

ble ca use bec ause it conta ins no assertion that SOI# 2073 observe d narc otics in the home or that off

icer s observe d narc otics traff ic in and ar ound t h e h o u s e. W eave r is distinguishable. The aff

idavit in W

eave r was ba sed on a “ tip” by

an informa

nt about an uncontr olled purcha se of na

rcotics a lleg ed to be takingplace at a c erta in l o ca t i o n . He re, the aff idavit was not ba se d o n a

n in fo rm ant’ s ti p, bu t on

the c on tr oll e d pur c ha se of c oc a ine a t a re sid e nc e by

a re lia ble

so ur c e wi th w ho m th e a ff iant h a d p re vio us ly

wo rk e d, wh ic h p ur c ha se wa s in de pe nd e ntl y

corr oborate d by the aff

iant. Simi lar aff

idavits have pre viously

been uphe ld by

this court. See, e .g., United States v. Pinson , 3 21 F .3 d 5 58 , 5 63 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) (h oldi ng th at a wa rr ant a ff ida vit

e sta bli sh e d p ro ba

ble c aus e whe re it d e sc ri be d th e c on tr oll e d p ur c ha se of dr ug s b y a re lia ble informant and obse rved by police off

icer s, whi ch purcha se took place within 72 hours of the application for

the sea rch w arr ant). Slaughte r also conte nds that the sale of small user qua ntities of narc otics from a r esidenc e10

does not provide an infe renc e of stora g e at the r esidenc e. Where , as her e, a c omplete strang er g oes to a residenc e to pur chase coca ine and actua lly g ets it, no matter the quantity , it is rea sonable to infer that more drug s may

be stored the re. B. Sla ug hte r’ s Franks claim also fa ils. A defenda nt may ch al l en ge the lawfulness of a n executed sea

rch w arr ant on t h e basis that a f alse stateme nt, made intentionally or re cklessly , was in c lu d e d in th e w ar

r an t a f f id a v it an d w a s n e c e s s ar

y to a f in d in g o f p r o b a

b le c ause. Franks v. De law ar e , 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978). The district c ourt’s fac tual finding s are examined f or cle ar

err or. Un ite d S

tat es v . B e nn e tt , 170 F.3d 632, 635 ( 6th Cir. 1999). The c ontrolled purcha se of c ocaine by SOI# 2073 at Slaug hter’s r esidenc e on August 24, 2002 provides the basis for the war rant a ffidavit. We find that the district cour t did not commit clea

r

err or when it conclude d that the controlled pur chase of coc aine at Slaughter ’s re sidence did in fact

oc c ur on that dat e. T he re is n o e vid e nc e in t he re c or d und e rm ini ngthe c ourt ’s de c isi on to c re dit Offic er Moor e’s testimony

. Slaughte r’s cousin left t he home for sig nificant pe riods of time during wh ic h th e c on tr oll e d b uy

c ou ld h a ve take n pla c e , Sla ug hte r’ s g ir lf

ri e nd wa s in

a nd ou t of the ho us e all day chec king on the baby

and the evidenc e shows that Slaughte r’s g irlfriend ha d lied for him on pr e vio us oc c a sio ns . Sla ug hte r a rgue s th a t th e do c ume nts le ft a t Sla ug hte r’ s r e sid e nc e a ft e r t

he se arc h s ug g e sts that th e De tr oit

Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt m anu fa c tur e s in fo rm ants a s w e ll a s c on tr oll e d d ru g purc ha se s, and that the i n ab i l ity

of the Gove rnment to locate the SOIor to provide c oncre te information

re g ard inghis wh e re a

bo uts su g g e sts the re wa s n o c on tr oll e d b uy . We dis a g re e . T he Sixth C ir c uit has held that, a lthough the D ue Proce ss Clause require s the Gover nment to disc lose the identity of11

an informa

nt at trial under c erta in circumstanc es, “it has ne ver be en held to re quire the disclosure of an informant’s identity at a suppression hearing .” Un ite d Sta te s v . R ad da tz , 447 U.S. 667, 679 (1 98 0) ; see also United States v . Cummins , 912 F.2d 98, 103 ( 6th Cir. 1990) (h o lding that “ due proce ss does not require the di sclosure of an informa

nt’s identity

at a suppre ssion hearing ”). Moreove r, the e vidence shows th at S l aug hter’s de cision to jump bond seriously undermined the Gover nment’s abili ty to produce the s ource . Wit h respe ct t o the form doc uments left behind by one of the off

icer s, no witness testified as to wher e, how, or when these documents we re f ound. Fur thermore , Offic er Moor e provide d a plausibl e ex planation for why the documents may

have be en inadver tently left in the home. He testified that, on occ asion, offic ers will br ing into the searc hed premises the sta n d ar d i z ed forms so that they can sit down a

nd fill out the paperw ork and the evidenc e tag s on the spot. Slaughter ’s spec u l at i o n that the documents show that De troit police office rs manufa cture informants and c ontrolled buy s on the fly when they

are executing unla

wful

se arc he s, wi tho ut a

ny ba sis in e vid e nc e or

fa c t, i s in su ff

ic ie nt t o s ho w that th e c on tr oll e d p ur c ha se did not occur on Aug ust 24, 2002. Bec ause Slaug hter c annot show a Franks vio la tio n, this clai m

a lso fa ils

. Ac co rd i n gl y , b ec au s e t h e re i s n o b as i s u p o nwh i ch t o re v er s e t h e l o we r c o u rt ’s ru l i n gs de nyingSla

ug hte r’ s su

pp re ssi on mot ion s, we AF F I RM.