## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2705 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. F RANK D. M C G RAW, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 06 C R 28

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngmann, Judg e.
A RGUED J AN UA RY 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 2, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YK ES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Whi l e ex ec ut i nga s ea r chwar r an t f o r dr ug s i ns i de a F o r t W ayne , I ndi an a ap ar tment bui l ding, pol i ce o ffi cer s no ti ced thatthe bui l ding had seve ral hou sing-cod e v io la tions. Poli ce called a n eighbo rhood cod e-enforcem en t officer, w ho a r r ived and de termi ne d tha tthe a pa r tm entb ui l di ngmus tb e c o nd e mne d. That deter m i nati on r equi re d offi cer s t o go door

- to- door and noti fy the bui l ding’ s re si dents thattheyneeded to l e a v e the i r a pa r t men t s . Whe n F r a nkM c Gr a w, th e s e c o nd

-2 N o. 08

- 2705 floo r t en an t, ar riv ed on th e s c en e, offic er s in st ru c te d h im to se c u re h is do g an d c olle c t th e be lon gin gs h e w o u ld need f ora few d ay s. They al so expla i ned thei r need to i nspect hi s a partm ent forhousing- code v i ol ati ons and to se ar chf o r po te nt i als tr ag g l er s. M cGr aw c o ns en ted to the se ar chthre e ti m es b efo r e l ea vingthe a par tmentb ui l di ng w i th hi s dog

. Duri ng tha t se arch, pol i ce obser ved narco ti cs in pla i n vi ew , and M cGraw was ch ar ge d w i th posse ssi on o fcr ack coca i ne. M cGr aw mov ed to s uppr es s th e ev i den ce , c l aimin g that any c onse n t he gave was not vol untarybut i nstea d con stitut ed acq uiesc en ce to th e officers’ disp lay ofauthori ty. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed th e m oti on, fi nd i ng tha t M cGraw ’ s co nsent w as vol untary
. M cGraw then enter ed i nto a co nd i ti onalpl ea ag re em ent, in w hi ch he wai ved hi s r i ght t o ap pealse ntenci ng dete rm i nati ons but pre

ser ved hi s r i ght t o ap pealthe cour t’ s s up press i on r uling. A t s entencing the d i str i ct c ourtcl ass i fi ed M cGraw as a c ar ee r offe n d er u n d er th e g u id elin es an d se n te n c ed h im to 26 2 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t
. O n ap p ea l M c G ra w ch all enges the cour t’ s s up press i on r u li ng and i ts deter m i nation th at he qu ali fi ed as a career offen d er. W e affirm

. T h e d ist ric t cou rt d id n ot c lea rly er r in fin d in g t h at M c G ra w vo lu n ta rily c on se n te d to th e o ffic e r s ’ s e a r c h

. T h e c o u r ta n a l y z e d th e t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u msta nces and determ i n ed thatdespi te the way in w hi ch som e o fthe of f i cer s p hras ed thei r re quest t o search M cGraw ’ s uni t, M cGraw vo l untari l y c onse nted to th eir se ar c h . B ec au se th e c ou rt ’s c on c lu sio n is en t i r ely pl au sibl e i n l i g htof the r ec o r d v i ewe d i n i ts e nt i r ety, theN o. 08

- 2705 3

The hi s t o r i c a l f a c t s c o n c e r n i n g th e s e a r c h a r e t a k e n fr om 1 the d istrict c ou rt’ s op inio n d en y ing M cG raw ’ s m otio n to supp ress. M cGraw does not chall enge the se findings off act on ap p eal. cour t pr oper l y deni ed M cGraw ’s m oti on t o supp re ss. Fu rt h er , w e h old th at M c G ra w w aiv ed h is rig h t t o c h all en g e th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s se nt en cingde te r m i na ti o n.

I . B a c kg r o und A. Of f i c e r s Se a r c h Mc Gr a w’ s Apa r t me nt 1 On Apr i l6 , 2 00 6, Offi ce r Squ adri to , Offi ce r M us i, a nd o th eroffi ce r s ex ec ut ed a se ar chwar r an t f o r dr ug s i n the thi rd- fl oo r unito fan a partm ent b u ildingi n Fo rtW ayne, I ndi an a. In the pr o ce ss o fs ea r ch i ng th e a par tmenta nd ar re sting it s inhabi tants , o ffi cer s no ti ced se ver alhousingcod e viol ati o ns . Th ey con tact ed M ark Salom on, a neighb orhood cod e-enforcem en t o ff icer, w ho arrived and de term i ned th at the b uil ding m ust be co nd em ned because , am ong othe r vi ol ati ons, i t l acke d a working furnace. Bec au se thi s dec i si on requi r ed th e o ffi ce r s to b o ar d up th e bu il d ing un tilthe land lord m ad e the ne c e s s a ry r epa i r s, the o ffi ce r s fi r st ha d to no ti fy the r es i den ts o fthe con d em na ti o n a nd e ns ur e th ate ve r ybo dy va ca te d the bui l ding. Fr ank M cGraw , the se cond-fl oo r tenant, was abs en t, b uto ffi ce r s co ul d he ara l ar g e do gb ar k i ng behi nd hi s doo r. O ffi cer s s oo n l earned that M cGraw was acr oss the str eet, and theysum m oned him t o his apar tm ent. B y the t i m e M cGraw ar ri ved, S al om on had4 N o. 08

- 2705 att ached a “co nd em ned si gn” t o the fro nt o f the bui l ding. A c r o wd o fbystan de r s h a d a l s o g a the r e d, a nd a S. W
. A
. T. te am fro m the thi rd- fl oo r ra i d sto od by. Salom on an d M us i greeted M cG raw on th e bu il d ing’s fro nt por ch. M cGraw as ked wh at hi s a partm ent had t o do w i th the thi rd- fl oo r sea rch, and S al om on answ er ed that the e nti re b u ildinghad bee n condem ned. S al om on tw i ce explained to M cGraw thato ffi cer s “ w oul d need to go int o h is a p ar tm en t t o d o a [n ] ins p ec tio n i n s i d e o f h is ap ar tm en t t o loo k for oth er h ou sin g c od e v iola tio n s.” S al o m o n a l so t o l d M cGr aw tha t th e do gprev en te d the o ffi ce r s fr o m c o nduc tingthi s i ns pec ti o n. S al o m o n thus offer ed M cGraw the choi ce t o retr iev e hi s dogo r have A n im al Contr oldo i t forhi m . M cGraw chos e the f or m er an d co m m en te d th at h is “ d og d id n ot lik e p eo p le in unif or m , ” a st ate m ent the di str i c t c ou rti nter prete d as a j ok e . As McG r a w a pp r o a c he d the b ui l di ng ’ s e nt r a nce, Sq u ad rit o to ld h im “t o re tr iev e his d og a n d h is belong ings, becau se it w as going to be a d ay or tw o” before M cGraw co uld r eente r the condem ned bui l ding. M cGraw r e s p ond ed that officers w ere “w elcom e to go up there w ith him ” an d rei terated that h is d og, a “p it bull [, ] d oesn ’t like p olic e o ffice rs .” In sid e t h e b u ild in g b u t o u ts id e h is a pa r t men t, McG r a w the n s po k e wi th M us i, wh o a ske d, “Sir, do you m ind if w e g o in w ith you to m ake su re there’s n ob od y e lse i n t h er e? ” M c G ra w res p on d ed , “G o a h ea d if yo u w an t t o s e a r c h ,” or “Y ea h, go ah ea d an d co m e in an d se ar c h if yo u w an t t o.” Sq u ad rit o, h o w e v er , told h is fel l ow offi cer s t o sta y outsi de beca use the pi t bul lthr eat
ened thei r safety
.N o. 08

- 2705 5 M cGraw e n tered hi s a partm ent, and a few m i nutes pa s s e d whi l e he s e a r c he d f o r hi s do g ’ s l e a s h. Be c a us e o f the del ay, pol i c e tol d M cGraw to l eave hi s a partm ent. M cG raw qu ickly leashe d h is d og w ith his cell -ph one cord an d ex ite d th e a p ar tm en t, lea vin g h is d oo r ajar an d h is l i ghts and tel evi si on o n. Once o utsi de the b u i l ding, M c G ra w ag ain br iefly sp ok e w ith Sq u a d r ito , w h o t old M c G ra w th at p olic e “w er e goin g to c h ec k h is a p ar tm en t.” M c Gr a w r e s po nd e d tha t hi s do o r wa s o pe n a nd tha t t hey we r e “ mor e tha n we l come ” t o e nt e r b uttha tn o b o dy re m ain ed ins id e. Sq u ad rit o e x p lain ed th at p olic e w ou ld no ne th el es s ha ve t o make s ur e be f o r e th ey bo ar ded up the b uil ding. M cGraw then l eft the p re m i ses with hi s dog

. Squadri to enter ed M cGraw ’ s a partm ent t o sea rch f or str agg l er s, wh i l e S al om on s ear ched the uni t foro ther housi ng- code v i ol ati ons. In M cGraw ’ s be droo m S quad ri to sa w in p lain vie w a d igit al s c ale w ith a w h ite r e s i d u e, a pl as ti c ba gc o nt aininga g r ee n wee d- l i k e su bs ta nc e, a nd an o p en gy m bagco ntai ni ng m oneyand suspecte d crac k coca i ne. S quad ri to had Sal om on photog ra ph the suspected nar cot i cs, and theyqui ckly e x i ted the apar tm ent. Pol i ce l ate r obt ai ned a se ar ch w ar ra nt and r eco ver ed the e vi dence.

B. The Pro ceedi ngs Bel ow M cGraw was char ged with posse ss i on with i ntent to d istribu te crack c ocaine in viol ation of 21 U

. S. C
. § 841(a)( 1). H e m ove d to supp re ss the evi dence obtai ned i n the s ear ch o fhi s apa r tment
. The di st r i ctc o ur t co nc l ude d th at th e o ffi ce r s ha d pe r f o r m ed a war r an tl es s sear chwi th o ut6 N o. 08

- 2705

ex igent circu m stan ces a n d that sup p ression th erefore turned on w hetherM cGraw had voluntari l y c onse nted to the search

. Th e co u r t h eld th at “a totality ofthe circum sta nces shows that the Defendant vo l untari ly gave perm i ssi on t o the o ffi cer s. ” The co urt f ound that M cGraw conse nted fi rs t t o Squadri to’ s r equest to sea rch and then to M u si’s be for e e n te rin g h is a p ar tm en t t o re tr iev e h is dog, but that the s cope o ftho se conse nts was l i m i ted to a s ea rc hw ith M c G r a w p re se n t. T h e c ou rtfu rt h er h eld th atM cGr aw e xt en ded th e sc o pe o fhi s consent to e nco m pas s a se arch ou tsi de o fhi s pr es en ce when, a s he exi ted the bui l d in g w i th hi s dog, he t ol d Squadri to th at offic er s w er e “ m or e t h an w elc om e” to se ar c h h is apart m ent. The c o ur t r ej ec te d M cGr aw’ s ar g um en t th ata ny conse n t he ga ve w as m er el y a cquie scence to the offi cer s’ di spl ayo fa utho rity an d the r efo r e no t vo l unt ar y . The co ur t be l i ev ed th atthe f ac ts “ pr es en t a c los e ca se ” but n on et h ele s s c on c lu d ed th at th e o ffice rs d id n otcla im au th or ity to se a r c h a n d th at an y c on se n t w as vo lu n ta rily g i v e n. As the c o ur te xp l a i ne d, T h i s fi n d i n gr e s t s p r i ma r i l y o n th e f a c t s th a t[ Mc Gr a w] was no t a su sp ect and ha d no r ea so n t o thi nktha t he was a s us pec t, tha t [ M cGr aw] g av e co ns en t to the offi cer s t o com e with h im into hi s a partm ent tw i ce, th at[ M cGr aw] i nv i te d the m i n a th i r d t i m e as he w as l eav i ng, and that the inter acti ons between [ M cGraw ] and the offi cer s had b een cal m and cooper ati ve. The dis tr i ct courtals o consi dered the offi cer s’ co m m ents. I t co nstr ued Sal om on’ s s tat em ent ofa “need to g o i nsi de”N o. 08

- 2705 7 t o i n s p e c tth e a p a r t me n ta s a r e q u e s t r a th e r th a n a c o mm and beca u se it had no co er ci ve effect and did not i m plythatS al om on s uspected M cGraw of w ro ngdoi ng. The cour t inter prete d Squadri to’s state m ent that pol i ce “w er e g oi ng to checkhi s a partm ent” as a “ f ol l ow-u p ” t o M cGr aw ’s fi rs t invi tat i on into hi s a partm ent o r, al ternati ve ly, a s a sugg est i on o fautho ri ty base d onl y o n M cGraw ’ s p re vi ous c onse nts. The co urt al so hi ghl i ghted that M usi ’ s quest i on wh ethero ffi cer s c ou l d enter M cGraw ’ s a part m ent i m pli ed that perm i ssi on co uld be refused , yet M cG raw n everth eless w elcom ed officers i nto hi s apart m ent. Fi nal l y, the cour t no ted that“the to tal l ac ko fa ny s ta te m en t by[ M cG raw] i m pl y i ngtha t he obj ecte d to the o ffi cer s’ sear c h o fhi s a partm ent a l so su gg es ts h e v olu n ta rily c on se n te d to th e s ea rc h o fh is ap ar tm en t.” Ha v i ng lo stthe s up pr e s s i o n b a t t l e , McG r a w e nt e r e d a condi tional pl ea ofgui l ty, waive d his r i ght t o chal l enge any a s pe c to fh i s s e nt e nc i ng, a nd p r e s e r v e d h i s r i g htto chal l enge the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fh i s m oti on t o sup p re ss. A t s entencing the di str i ct c ourtcl ass i fi ed M c Gr a w a s a c a r e e r o ffe nd e r un de r § 4 B1
. 1 o fthe U nited S t a t e s Senten cin g G uid elines and sentence d him to 26 2 m onths, the l ow end o fthe appli cabl e guidel i nes r ange.

II . A n alysis This case pre sents two i ssues o n appeal : fi rs t, wh ether the di str i ct c ourt c lea rl y e rr ed i n deter m i ni ng tha t M cGraw vo l untari l y c onse nted to the sea rch of h is a partm en t, a nd s ec o nd, whether M cGr aw may c ha l l en g e th e8 N o. 08

- 2705

W e pr e s ume f or pu r po s e s of thi s a ppe a l tha t the s e a r c h w as 2 c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o n l y i fMc Gr a w v o l u n t a r i l y c o n s e n t e d t o the of fic ers ’ ent ry. The gov ernm ent has notdisp u te d the dist ri ct cou rt’ s find ing tha t no e x ige nt circu m stan ces justified th is w arrant le ss s earc h, nor has the gov ernm ent suggest ed that the speci al- needs or adm ini st rat ive- se arch doctr in es are rel ev an t. d istri ct cou rt’s classification of M cG raw a s a career offe n d er. Be cau se w e con clud e tha t the district cou rt did notcl early er r i n i ts supp re ssi on ruling and that M cGraw waive d his r i ght t o chal l enge hi s s entencing, we a ffi r m.
A. T he Di s t r i c tC o urt ’ s Su ppr e s s i o n Ru l i ng The F o ur th an d F o ur te en thAm en dm en ts s afegua r d the “r igh t o f th e p eo p le t o b e s ec u re in t h eir
. . . h ou se s . . . aga in st u n re as on ab le s ea rc h es and seizure s. ” A w ar rantl ess sea rch ofa suspect’ s house witho ut exi gent ci rcum sta nces i s pre sum pti vel y unre aso nabl e, P a yto n v . New Yo rk, 44 5 U
. S
. 5 7 3 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , a nd the e xc l us i o na r y r ul e g e ne r a l l y r equir e s s up pr e s s i o n o fthe e v i de nc e o b t a i ne d fr o m such se ar c h es . H ow ev er , th is ge n er al r u l e is su bj ec t t o w ellrecogn ized exc ep tions, inc lud ing the sus p ect’s volu nt ary co ns en t to the s ea r ch

. See, e.g., S c hn e c kl oth v. Bu s t am onte, 2 412 U
. S. 21 8 ( 1973 )
. Consent- sea rch case s di stingui sh between vo l untaryco nsent and consent re sul ti ng fro m d u re ss , coe rc ion, or ac q u ies c en c e t o a u th or ity . T h is is a “ questi on o ff act to be det er m i ned fr om t h e to tali ty of al lthe ci rcum sta nces, ” i d. a t 22 7, a nd the g o ve r nm en tN o. 08

- 2705 9 bear s the bur den ofpro vi ng vo lu n tary conse nt bya p re p on d er an c e o f th e e vid en c e, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bas i ns ki, 22 6 F .3d 82 9, 83 3 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ). Fac to rs be ar in g on th is i nquir y incl ud e: ( 1) the pe r so n’ s ag e, i nt el l i g en ce , a nd e duca ti o n, ( 2) wh etherhe was advi sed of hi s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts, (3) h ow lon g h e w as d et ain ed be for e h e g av e h is con se n t, ( 4) wh etherhi s co nsent w as i m m edi ate , o r w as prom pted by r epeate d request s by the autho ri ti es, ( 5) whethe r a ny phy si ca lc o er ci o n was us ed, a nd ( 6 ) wh e the r the i nd i v i du a lwa s i n po l i c e c us t o dy w hen he g ave hi s co nsent. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rai b l ey , 2 43 F.3d 10 69, 1075-76 (7th C ir. 20 01 ); se e also Schne ckloth , 4 12 U .S. a t 22 6 (lis tin g e ss en tia lly th e sam e factors). I n thi s ca se the di str i ct c ourt c on cl ud ed that the g over nm ent sat i sfi ed i ts burden of proving vo l untaryco nsent. The parti es ag re e that we r evi ew thatdeter m i nati on f or c lea r er ro r. See R a ibley, 2 4 3 F
. 3 d a t10 76; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Na fzger, 9 65 F
. 2d 21 3, 2 16 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2)
. “ A fi ndi ng i s cl ear l y e rr oneo u s w hen al though there i s e vi dence to su p p or t it, th e re vie w in g c ou rton th e e n tir e e vid en c e is l eft with the definite a n d fi rm co nvi cti on that a m i sta ke has be en co m m i tte d.” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Rice, 99 5 F
. 2d 719, 722 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. “W here ther e a re two perm i ss ible vi ew s o fthe evi dence, the f actfi nd er ’ s cho i ce b etween them cannotbe cl ear l y e rr oneo us.” A nde rs on v. Ci ty of B es se m erCity, N. C. , 47 0 U .S. 564, 574 (1985). Stated differen tly , “ ‘ [ i ] f th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s a c c ou n t o f th e fa c ts is p l a u s ib l e i n l i g h tofth e r e c o r d v i e we d i n i t s e n t i r e t y, we10 N o. 08

- 2705

m ay not re ver se that deci si on e ven i fwe m ay have deci ded the case di ffer entl y. ’ ” R a ibley, 24 3 F
. 3d at 1076 ( quoti ng C ent. Sta tes, Se. & Sw . Area s P ensio n F un d v . Kro ger Co. , 226 F.3d 903 , 910 (7th C ir. 2000)). W e agr ee w i th the dist ri ct cour t that thi s i s a c los e case. On the one hand, co nsi derabl e e vi de n ce s ugges ted that M cGraw vo l untari l y c onse nted to the offi cer s’ sear ch. Fo r i nstance , M usi speci fi cal l y r equeste d the ri ght t o enter M cGr aw’ s apa r tment, si g na l i ng th at M cGr aw m ay wi th

hold cons en t. Y et M cG raw read il y allow e d M us i to ent er. Further, M cGraw co nsented t o Squadri to’ s e ntry bo th b efo re an d aft er h e s ec u re d h is d og . M c G ra w als o left h is d oo r ajar an d h is ligh ts on, an d to ld S q u ad rit o of t h is f ac t as he l eft hi s apa r tmentb ui l di ng, thus sugg esti nghe approve d ofthe offi cer s’ e ntryi nto hi s a partm ent. M or eove r, the dist ri ct c ourtf ound t h at t he to ne o fthe i nter acti on be tw een M cGraw and t h e offi cer s a t a l lti m es re mai ne d c a l m a nd c o o pe r a t i v e , a nd the e v i de nc e s up port s t h is fi nd i ng. Final l y, M cGraw ev en j oke d w i th pol i ce about hi s dog ’ s di sl i ke ofo ffi cer s, sugg est i ng ( as th e d istri ct co u r t h e ld) that M cG raw w as no t overw hel m ed by any s how o fautho ri ty. On the othe r h an d , ther e i s a l so som e e vi dence that w eighs aga inst a fi n d in g of volun tariness
. M ost im p ortantl y, i n thei r encounterwith M cGraw , both S quad ri to and Sal om on a rgu ab ly im pli ed that they had a r i ght t o se ar chM cGr aw’ s a par tmentwi th o uthi s per m i ss i o n. Further, S quad ri to tes ti fi ed that i fhe were unabl e t o l oca te M cGraw , he “ w oul d h av e m ade the deci si on t o have con tact ed the land lord, un lock the d oor, and m ad e sureN o. 08

- 2705 11 th er e [w er e] n o h u m an oc c u p an ts w ith inth e d w ellin g.” H ad a search resulted m erely from the land lord’s c on se n t, th e e x c lu sio n ar y ru le m igh t b e t rig ge re d

. See C ha pm a n v . U nited Sta tes , 365 U
. S. 610 (1961). Face d w i th co m peti ng evi dence, the dist ri ct cour t l oo ked to the “ to ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumst ance s” i n de te r m i ni ng whethe r M cGr aw’ s co ns en t was v o l unt ar i l y g i ve n. The cour t t re ate d Sal om on’ s a nd Squadri to’ s suspect l anguage as a “factor [that ] w eighs against a fi nd ing o f v o lu nt ary conse nt, ” a nd sugg est ed that eve n i n the prese nce ofsuch l anguage , the properi nquir y i s “ w h et h er such cl ai m s [ of au th o r i ty ] o ut wei g h the o th erf ac to r s su g g es tingc o nse nt wa s v o l unt a r y . ” T h a ti s p r e c i s e l y th e a p p r o a c h th a twe o u t l i n ed i n U nited Sta tes v. Na fzger . In th a tc a s e we re f er r e d t o a n i mpr o pe r c l a i m o f po l i c e a utho r i t y as a “f acto r” that m ust be “w ei gh[ ed]

. . . al ong w i th th e o ther fac to rs that Schneckloth

. . . di re cts cour ts to w ei gh in tot al i ty- of

- the- ci rcum sta nces case s. ” Naf zger, 965 F. 2d at 21 6; s e eal s o Bolden v. Se
. Pe nn. Tr ans p. Aut h. , 95 3 F
. 2d 807, 82 4 ( 3d Ci r . 1991) (e n b an c) ( “I fthe pa r tyc o nduc tingthe sea rch cl ai m ed the author i ty to se arch w i thout conse nt, th at facto r w e ig h s a g a in s ta fin d in gofv o lu n t a r y c o n s e n t .” ). T h e d ist ric t c ou rtco n c l u d ed th at th e o ffice rs ’ arg u ab le ass er ti ons ofautho ri ty did noto utw ei gh the ev i dence supp or ti ng the co ncl usi on that M cGraw ’ s co nsent w as vol untary, nam el y, M cGraw ’ s co nd uct, hi s ca l m co oper ation, an d his broad ly p hra sed cons e n t s foll ow ing M us i’ s unam bi guous re quest t o i nspect hi s a partm ent. The cour t’ s fi nd i ng tha t M cGraw vo l un ta rily c onse nted to the o ffi cer s’ se ar ch is c ertainl y “ pla usibl e in l i ght o f12 N o. 08

- 2705 the r eco rd vi ew ed i n i ts enti re ty. ” R a ibley, 24 3 F
. 3d at 1076
. W e a r e n o tl e ftwi th “ the de fi ni t e a nd fi r m co nv i cti on that a m i sta ke has be en co m m itted. ” U nite d State s v. R ice, 99 5 F
. 2d 71 9, 7 22 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3)
. Keeping i n mi nd the defe re n c e d u e the di str i ct j ud ge, wh o i s in a s up er i or p os itio n to ob se rv e t h e w itn es se s a n d d et er m in e e x ac tly w hat happened and how i t happened, we c on c l ud e that th e cou rt did not clearly err. M c Gr a w, h o we v e r, a r g ue s tha t N a fzgerc o m pel s th e o ppo si te r es ul t. W e disa g r ee . In Na fzger, pol i ce went to Nafz g e r ’ s f a r m a nd a s s er ted th e r i g htt o s e a r c h hi s p r o perty for a stolen p ickup truc k based on a legally i ns uffi ci ent s ear ch w ar ra nt. N afzge r w as perm i tte d to re ad the s ear ch w ar ra nt and then l ed office rs to a too l shed w he r e the s t o l e n t r uc kwa s p a r k e d. Na fz g e r l a t e r mo v ed to supp re ss the e vi dence, and the dist ri ct c ou rtdeni ed h is m ot ion . W e re ve rs ed , ho ld in g th at N afz ge r m er ely acqui esce d to the s ear ch bas ed on the o ffi cer s’ f al se c l a i m of au th or ity
. Na fzgeri s di s t i ngui s hab l e f o r s e v e r al r e a s o ns . F i r s t, the o ffi c e r s i n thi s c a s e di d n o tmake any c om parabl e cl ai m o fautho ri ty akin to as ser ti ng the y ha d a war r an t; no r di d the y, a s i n Na fzger, actual l y pr oduce on e. Se c on d , e v e n if Sq u ad rit o a n d Sa lom on d id cla im author i ty to sea rch

— a fi nd i ng, a s w e e xplained abov e, the di stric t courtr ej ecte d

— th eir assert ions w ere t e mpe r e d b y Mus i ’ s qu e s t i o na n d McG r a w’ s a c t i o ns . T hi r d, Na fzgerdoes notsugg estthatan o ffi cer ’ s a sse rt i on o f a u th o r i t y e n d s th e f a c t u a li n q u i r y . O n th e c o n t r a r y, o ur opi ni on r eco gni zed th at the di str i ct c ourtm ust a pp l y a tot al i ty- of

- the- evi dence anal ysi s eve n w hen f aced w ith offic er s’ c laim s o f au th or ity
. Na fzger, 965 F. 2d at 216. H er e, the di str i ct c ourtdi d preci sely that.N o. 08

- 2705 13 B . M c Gr a w’ s W a i v e r o f Hi s Ri g ht t o Appe a l Hi s S e nt ence M cGraw al so tr i es to chal l enge hi s s entencing cl ass i fi cati on a s a car eero ffen der, wh i ch incre ase d his gui del i n e s r a n g e fr o m 92- 11 5 mo n th s t o 2 6 2

- 3 2 7mo n th s . He ar gues th at fleei ng fro m an o ffi cerand i nti m i dati ng an officer are no l ong er crim es o f v iol en ce after Bega y v . U nited Sta tes , 12 8 S
. Ct. 15 81 ( 2008 )
. W e do not add re ss th e m er i ts ofthi s quest i on, however ; i n hi s pl ea agr eem en t, M c G ra w w aiv ed h is rig h t t o a p p ea l his se n te n c e. A knowing and v ol untary appeal w ai verpre cl ud es appell ate re vie w , U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 381 F.3d 615 , 619 (7th C ir. 20 04 ) , a nd M cGr aw a dm i ts tha t hi s pl ea a g r ee m en t i ncl ud ed an unam bi guous w ai verof hi s r i ght t o chal l enge the di str i ct c ourt ’ s s entencing dete rm i nati ons. H e nonethel ess ar gu es that because he di d not a nti ci pate Bega y, h e c ou l d not hav e know i ngl y a nd vo l untari l y wai ved hi s r i ght t o appeal bas ed on a Bega y - type ar gum ent. W e hav e co nsi ste ntl y r ej ecte d argum ents that an app e a l wa i v e r i s i nv a l i d b e c a us e the de fe nd a nt did not an ti ci pat e su bse que ntl eg alde ve l o pm en ts
. In U nited St at e s v. Lo ckwood, 41 6 F
. 3d 604 ( 7th C ir. 20 05) , f or ex ampl e, we co ns i dered a ch al l en g e fr o m a de fen dan t se nt en ce d b efo r e th e S upr eme Co ur t d eclar ed th e se nte nc i ngg ui del i ne s adv i so r y i n U n i t e d S ta tes v. B o o k er, 54 3 U
. S. 22 0 ( 2005 )
. T he defendant ar gued that “hi s a pp eal w ai veri s inval i d because the parti es and t he co urt f ai l ed to anti ci pate B o o k er . ” Lockwood, 4 1 6 F. 3 d a t6 0 7
. We i nstea d concl ud ed that L oc kw oo d kn ow i n gly an d int en tio n ally w aiv ed h is right to ap p eal his senten ce for any r e as on . . . . The f act14 N o. 08

- 2705 that Lockwood, the gov er nm ent, and t h e di str i ct c ou rtf ai l ed to anti ci pate B o o k ero r i t s s we e pi nge ffect on fed er al g u id elin es se n te n c i n g d oe s n otch an ge th is co nclusio n. The r e si m pl y i s no th i ngs pec i alabo ut B o o k ertha t woul d pr ec l ude e nf o r ce m en t o fa n o th er w ise va lid ap p ea l w aiv er . Id. at 608 (citations om itted ). Ourpo si ti o n in Lockwood i s c onsi ste nt with our l ongexpress ed vi ew t hat pl ea-bar gain appeal waive rs i nvol ve ris k: B y bind ing on eself one assu m es th e ri sk of futu re ch an ges in c ircu m stan ces in li gh t of w hich one’s ba r g ain may pr o ve t o ha ve b ee n a b ad o ne . Thati s th e ri ski nh e r e nti n a l lc o nt r a c t s ; the y l i mi tthe p a r t i es’ abi l i ty to tak e a dvantage o fwh at m ay happ en o ver th e p er iod in w h ich th e c on tr ac t is in e ffec t. U nited S t a t e s v . B o w nes , 40 5 F
. 3d 634, 63 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( al so rej ectin g the ar gum ent that B o o k ercr eat ed a “ sea c h an ge ” in th e la w an d c om m en tin g t h at in a n y e ve n t, a
“ ‘ sea change ’ exce pti on t o the rule

. . . would be hopeles sly va gu e” ). W e a lso n ot ed th at ou r c on c lu sio n co u ld differhad the defe nd ant “ i ns i ste d on an e scape hatch that w oul d have e nabled h im to appeali fthe l aw changed i n hi s f avo r afterhe was s entence d.” Id. Lockwood a nd B o w nes thus r e qu i r e tha twe a ffi r m. By enter in g in to an a pp ealwaive r that did noti ncl ud e a n es ca pe ha tc h o fthe k i nd w e c ont empl at ed i n B o w nes , M cGraw r el i nquished hi s r i ght t o chal l en ge hi s s entence bas ed on interven ing Sup rem e C ou rt de cisions. M oreover,N o. 08

- 2705 15 th e case for recognizing an y exc ep tion after B egayi s f ar w eak er than the case f or re cogni zi ng an excepti on aft er B o o k er . A fte r al l , Bega y w as a s tatutor y- i nter preta ti on case , wh er eas B o o k eri nval i dated the entire m andator yg u i d e l i n e s s y s t e m o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a lg r o u n d s . I fa d e f en d an t’s plea a g r e em en t rem ains kn ow ing an d volun tary despit e B o o k er, Bega ycannotco m m and a con trar y r esul t. A ccor dingl y, bec ause M cGraw ’ s wai vero fhi s r i ght t o appeal hi s sentence i s v al i d, w e do not re ach the m er i ts ofM cGraw ’ s s entencing ar gum ent. A FFI RMED .

7- 2- 09