FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MARCH 23, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation. [ PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1507 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 00 10 3- CR-F TM-2 9- DNF
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us DANIEL J. LYONS, JR., D ef en da nt- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch23, 200 5)
Be fo re MA RC U S, F A Y a nd S IL E R , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg e:2

D a n i e l L. Lyo n s a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f

a mm u n i t i o n b y a convicted felon, in violatio n of 1 8 U. S. C. § 922(g), and the 235-m onth sentence the dis tr ic t c ourt im

pose d base d on his sta tus as an “ ar m ed care er cr im ina l, ” pur suant t o 18 U
. S. C. § 924( e) an d U. S. S. G
. § 4B 1. 4( b)
. O n a ppe al , L y ons ar gue s th at : ( 1) the dis tr ic t co urt er

re d by de ny ing his pr e- tr ia l m oti on t o su ppr es s f our bul le ts f ound on his pe rs on d

ur ing ase ar chinc ide nt to his ar re st fo r dis or de rl y

c ondu ct , avio la tio n of Fl a. St at
. § 87 7. 03 ; (2 ) the dis tr ic t co urt e rr ed by gr an tin g th e gove rn m en t’ s m oti on in l im ine to ex cl ude e vid en ce of Ly on s’s sta te -c ourt a cquit ta l onthe § 87 7. 03 charges; and (3) the im

pos i t i o n o f a 235-m onth “ arm ed car eer crim inal” sentence
co nst itu te s c ru el a nd u nusu al pun ish m en t, in vio la tio n of the E igh th A m en dm en t. W e ap ply am ixe d standard of

r ev ie w to the de nia l of

ade fe ndant' s m oti on t o supp re ss, r ev ie w ing the dis tr ict c ourt’ s f ind ing s of

f ac t f or c le ar e rr or a nd i ts ap pli cat ion of

law to tho se f

ac ts d e novo . U nit ed

S ta te s v. D es ir , 257 F
. 3d 1 233, 1235 -3 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 1)
. W e re vie w a distri ct co urt’ s e vid en tiary r uli ngs fo r ab use of discretion. See United States v. Fraz ier, 387 F. 3d 1244, 1258 (11th Cir
. 2004 ) (e n b an c) , p et i t i o n fo r c er t . f i l e d , N o . 0 4
- 8 3 2 4 (J an . 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 ). As fo r L yon s ’s
co nst itu tio na l c ha lle nge to his se nte nc e, our r ev ie w is de novo
. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. Reynol ds , 21 5 F .3d 12 10 , 12 12 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ).3

Upon tho ro ugh re vie w of the r ec or d, as w el l a s c ar ef ul c onsi de ratio n of

the p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f

s a n do r a l a r g u me n t , w e f i n dn o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

a n da f f i rm. I. The r elevant facts are stra ightforward. O n Nov em ber 13, 2002, L y ons was indicted in one count for poss ession of am m uniti on ( four Rem ingto n .2 2 caliber bul le ts) , a ft er ha vin g be en co nvi ct ed of thr ee or m or e vio le nt f el ony or se ri ous dr

ug offenses, in vio lation of 18 U .S .C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The indictm ent identified ei gh t p rior

f el ony c onvi ct ion s: gran d t he ft, a tt em pt edrob be ry , agg rav at edass au lt , two robberies, sale or delivery of cocaine, poss ession of cocaine, and sale of a substance in lieu of a contr oll ed

sub stanc e. L y ons m ove d to dis m iss the ind ic tm en t, a rg uin g tha t the a rm ed -c ar ee r- cr im ina l c ha rg e vio la te d th e E igh th A m en dm en t’ s pr osc ri pti on
o f c r u e l a n du n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd e n i e dh i s m o t i o n . L y ons then filed a m otion to supp ress the four bu llets found on his person d uring a search incident to his arrest f

or disorderly

conduct
. H e ar gue d tha t the se iz ur e of the bul le ts
wa s illegal because his condu ct did not violate Florida’ s disorderly conduct statu te, Fl a. S ta t. § 877. 03. H e m ai nta ine d tha t the fo re goi ng ar gum en t w as sup porte d by the fa ct tha t he ha d be ena cquit te d onthe § 87 7. 03 c ha rg e in s ta te c ourt. At an evidentiary

hearing on the m otion to suppress, the governm ent presented the following evidence. Det ec t i v e Brian Geder ian of the Fort My ers Police4

D ep ar tm en t ( “ FM PD ”) te sti fi ed tha t, dur ing the e ar ly

m or nin g ho ur s o f

S e p t e m b e r 16, 2001 , he w as pa tr oll ing a n are a co nta ini ng a num be r of ba rs w he re “ se ve ra l f igh ts” ha d oc cu rred th atev en in g. Whe n he a rr ive d, D et ec tiv e G ed er ian a ppr oxi m at ed , 30 to 4 0 pe opl e w er e pr es en t a t the sc en e. T his w as ri ght ar ound the c los ing ti m e of

the
area bars. In the course of bre aking up a d ev el o p i ng fight, Dete ctive Ge derian
arre sted a frie nd of Ly ons. Ac co rd i n g to Detective G ederian, after he had arr ested Ly ons’s f riend and placed the frien d i n t h e b ack o f a patr ol car, Ly ons began

“ protesting about his friend’ s arre st” by “ swearing and cussi ng.” L y ons also directed
ra ci al e pit he ts a t D et ec tiv e Ged eri an . Detec ti ve Gede ria n d es cribe d L y ons’ s de m ea nor
as “ ve ry ag gr es si ve ,” an d i nd ic at edth athe ap pe ared in to xi cat ed
. For security

rea sons , D etective G ederian asked L y ons to “ step bac k about ten to f if te en tim es . ” L y ons fa ile d to co m ply w ith the se te n to f

if te enr eque sts a nd k ep t running toward Detective Gederian, approaching Geder ian at a distance he estim ated
w as not c los er than “ ar m ’ s leng th. ” A t this poi nt, D et ec tiv e G ed er ian m ove d to a rr es t L y ons. Whe n he w as tol d th at he w as goi ng t o be arre sted, L y ons too k a“ fi ght ing
s t an ce ,” n ec es s i t at i n g Ge d er i an ’s u s e o f p ep p er s p ra y t o s ub du e h i m . Af t erLyon s ’s
ar re st, pol ic e of

fi ce rs f ound fo ur Rem ing ton
. 22 c al ibe r bul le ts i n L y ons’ s f ro nt po ck et
.5

FM PD O ff

ic er Je ff re y P au l B er nic e, w ho w as on p atro l i n th e sa m e ar ea on the nigh t o f Lyon s ’s arr est, a ssisted in the arr est of L y ons’s f riend. O ffice r Be rnice te sti fi ed tha t the f ri en d w as a n Asi an m al e w ho, it w as re porte d, ha d sl ap pe d aw hit e fe m al e. O ff

ic er Be rn ic e te sti fi ed tha t he had en co unt er ed L y ons pr ior to the e ve nin g of Se pte m be r 16, 2001 , an d tha t, in the se sit ua tio ns, “ L y ons w as a lw ay s r es pe ct fu l t o
m e, courteous, kind , alway s friendly .” H owever , on the evening of his arrest, Ber nice described Ly ons as “ very upset” and “ an g ry .” A ccording to Offic er B ernice, after L y ons’ s f ri en d wa s arre ste d, L y ons be ga n “ sc re am ing obsc en iti es , ” an d ge sturi ng b y hold ing hi s hands u p in th e ai r. A t som e point, two bottles wer e thrown at law
en fo rc em e n t o f

f i c e r s i n t h e a r e a , b u t t h e o f f i c e r s w e r e u n ab l e t o t e l l w h o t h r e w the bot tle s. T he re w er e ab out f ive law e nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce rs a t the sc en e of

the a rr es t. Of ficer Bernice confirm ed that De tective Ge derian directed L y ons to leave, but that Ly on s di d no t co m

pl y wit h th is in st ru ct io n. Offi cer B ern ic e te st ifi edth atth e cro wd th en co ns is te d o f ov er 1 00 pe op le
. Insup port of

his sup pr es sio n m oti on, L y ons presented the testim ony of a friend, Jana K. Minor, w ho had been at the scene of L y ons’s ar rest. Minor stated that she, Ly on s, an d L y ons’ s th en -g ir lf ri en d w en t t o abar in d ow nto w n F ort M y er s. Outside of the bar, Minor saw a wom an nam ed “ Tr acy ” hit an Asian m an, a t which poi nt, the m anha d to “ re str ai n her [T ra cy ]
. . . so s he w oul dn’ t hi t hi m a ga in. ” Mi nor6

further testified that T racy then falsely

reported t o l aw enforce m ent that the Asian
m an hit her. Af

ter the alleged f

alse report, Minor sa w t h e o ff icers ar rest the A sian
m an. Minor al s o observed that after a fem ale fr iend protested th e ar rest, the police

“ thr [e w ] he r to the gr ound a nd p ut [ he r] in ha ndc uf fs
. ” A cc or din g to Mi nor , a t this poi nt L y ons ca lle d th e of fi ce rs “ fu ck ing hon ke y s” w hil e he w as w al kin g aw ay f ro m t h e s c e n e . T h e p o l i c e o f

f i c e r s t h e n s p r a y e d L y o n s w i t h ma c e a n dh a n d c u f f e dh i m. Ac cording to Min or’ s account, L y ons swore at the police office rs only once. In a Re port and Recom

m endation (R&R ), the m agistrate j udge recom m ended deny ing th e m otion to supp ress. The m agistrate j udge conclud ed that the police had pr obab le caus e to arr es t L y ons fo r a vio la tio n of F lor ida law ( dis or de rl y

c ondu ct ) ba se d on th e fo llo w ing f ac ts : ( 1) “ [a ] t the ti m e of Mr
. L y ons’ s arr es t, D et ec tiv e G ed er ian w as f

ac ing alarg e cr ow d of

pe opl e” a nd w as a tte m

pt in g to dis pe rs e the
cr ow d; ( 2) L y ons y el le d ob sc en iti es a t the of fi ce rs a nd w as “ runni ng u p to the of fi ce rs , ” fo r a “ re as on [ tha t] did not appe ar to be e vid en t t o O ff

ic er D et ec tiv e G ed er ian” ; and ( 3) bot tle s were th row n a t the of fi ce rs by unknow n pe rs ons in the
crow d. T he m agistrate j udge denied Ly ons’s supp re s s i o n m otion , c onclud ing th at

“ L y ons’ s w or ds a lon g w ithhis non -v er ba l a ct ion s in te rf

er ed w ithO ff ic er D et ec tiv e G ed er ian’ s du ty

to dis pe rs e the c ro w d, a nd O ff ic er D et ec tiv e G ed er ian ha d pr oba ble
cau se forarre st in g M r. Ly on s p ur su an t t o [F la . Sta t.] § 8 77 .03 .”7

L y ons obj ec te d to the R& R, a rg uin g, i nt er a lia , that un de r Fl or ida

law , his
co nd uc t d id no t co ns ti tu te di so rd erl y co nd uc t b ecau se it co ns is te d of “ m ere wo rd s.” The di st ri c t co ur t d is ag reed , ob se rv in g: (1) “ th e te st im on y est ab li sh edth ata cro wd of a couple hundred people we re” assem bled at the scene of L y ons’s ar rest; (2) w hen pol ic e of fi ce rs a rr es te d L y ons’ s f ri en d a ft er

af igh t, L y ons be ga n “ sw eari ng and
cu ssi ng” ; ( 3) L y ons “ w oul d st an d ba ck f or a m om en t, the n r

un u p ina n a ggr es siv e
m an ne r w hil e co nti nui ng to y el l, sc re am , a nd u se pr of an ity the e nti re ti m e” ; and ( 4) Ly ons “ repeate d this conduct betwee n ten and fifteen tim es over a per iod of abou t ten
m inu te s. ” Ba se d u po n thes e fi ndi ngs, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that “ the tot al ity of the circum stances in this case establishes th at defendant’ s conduct w as m ore than
m er e pr ote ct ed

spe ec h and w as suf

fi ci en t f or the of fi ce rs to ha ve pr obabl e ca use to
arre st und er the F lorida diso rderly person statute.” A ccordingly , the dist ri ct court de nie d L y ons’ s ob

j ec tio ns, a dopt ed

the R& R, a nd d en ie d th e m oti on t o su ppr es s. A t th e s t a rt o f L y o n s ’ s s ub s e qu e n t t r i a l , t h e g o v e rn m e n t m o v e d i n l i m i n e to pr ev en t L y ons fr om

intro duc ing e vid en ce of his s ta te- co urt a cquit ta l onthe disorderly -conduct c h ar g es . T he governm ent argued that this in form ation was irrelevant to L yons ’ s charged offe nse of possess ing amm uniti on while a convicted fe lon
. L y ons co nc ed ed thi s point , but m ai nta ine d that the e vid en ce w as r el ev an t t o8

show De tective Ge derian’ s m otive and bi as . The district court disagreed and granted th e g ov ern m en t’s m ot io n. At tria l , D etective G ederian presented testim ony that wa s, in all m aterial
re spe ct s, c onsi ste nt w iththe te sti m ony he pr ovi de d a t the sup pr es sio n he ar ing
. In additio n, he testified that af ter he r eturned to the pol ice station, O ffice r Se an Hoover gave h i m a“ pr op e rt y

e nv e l op e ” c on t a i ni ng t he f our b ul l e t s. D e t e c t i ve G ederian ind ic at ed that he pla ce d th e bul le ts i nto apla sti c ba g. H e al so i de nti fi ed the bul le ts fo r the j ur

y . Whe n he sub m itted th e bu ll et s f or f ing er pr int ing , about

f our m onths
a f t e r Lyo n s ’s a rr e s t , a n a l ys i s o f t h e b u l l e t s yi e l d e d n o f i n g e r p r i n te v i d e n c e . F i n a l l y, D et ec tiv e G ed er ia n ex pl ai ne d th at he did not m en tio n th e bul le ts o n th e “ book ing she et , ” w hic h he c om

ple te d sh ortly

a ft er L y ons’ s arr es t, be ca

use L y ons was not facing feder al charges a t that poin t, and the bu llets we re irrelevant t o the state charges th atLy on s was faci ng . D ur ing c ro ss- ex am ina tio n, de fe nse c ouns el sh ow ed D et ec tiv e G ed er ian a tr an sc ri pt fro m Ly on s’ s st at e tr ia l. D et ec tiv e G ed er ian a dm itt ed tha t, in thi s proceeding, he had not t es t i fied that L y ons assu m ed a “ fighting stance” w hen inform ed of the arr est. D efense c ouns el then tried to ask Ge derian about the char ges
an d st at e tr ia l, at

w hic h po int

the gov er nm en t ob j ec te d, a rg uin g th at

the inf orm at ion
w as not r el ev an t t o th e fe de ra l c ha rg e. D ef en se c ouns el r es pond ed

tha t he w as tr

y ing9

to establ i shD e t e c t i ve G e de r i a n’ s “ m ot i va t i onf or t e st i f y i ng . ” T he d i str i c tc ourt
su st ai ne d t he go ve rn m en t’s o bjec ti on . FM PD O fficer Sean Ho ove r tr an spor te d L y ons to the pol ic e sta tio n a ft er his
ar re st. O ff ic er H oov er te st ifie d a t tri al that a ft er a rr ivi ng a t the pol ic e sta tio n, he inv en tor ie d L y ons’ s pr ope rty . O ff ic er H oove r ide nti fi ed the pr ope rty e nve lop e in
w hic h he pla ce d Ly ons’ s posse ssi ons, w hic h incl ude d, a m ong oth er thi ngs, f our . 22-
ca lib er bul le ts. H oove r sa id tha t he re m ove d thes e bull et s fr om L y ons’ s pock et on the ni gh t Ly on s was arre st ed
. T he j ur y r et ur ne d agui lt y

ve rd ic t and L y ons pr oc ee de d to se nte nc ing
. T he presentence investigation report (“ P S I ” ) i nd i c at e d that, because L y ons had twice been
co nvi ct ed of

ac ri m e of

vio le nc e, aba se of

fe nse le ve l of

24 a ppl ie d. A nd b ec au se of his m ult ipl e pr ior

c onvi ct ion s, L y ons w as a n “ ar m ed c ar ee r cr im ina l, ” w ith in the
m eaning of 18 U.S .C. § 924(e) and U. S. S. G. § 4B1.4(a)
. Thus, based on a c rim inal his tor y Cate gor y V I an d atot al of

fe nse le ve l of

33 , his se nte nc ing r an ge w as 235 to 29 3 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Over Ly ons’s E ighth Am endm ent challeng e t o the constit ution ality of § 4B 1. 4’ s “ ar

m ed c ar ee r cr im ina l” pr ovi sio ns, the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed L y ons to a 235-m onth term

of im prisonm ent, f

ollowed by

a 3-y ear term

of supervised release. T his ti m el y

appe al f oll ow ed
.10 II. L y ons fi rs t arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by de nyin g his m oti on t o supp re ss the bul le ts b ec au se the F MP D of fi ce rs la ck ed pr oba

ble ca use to ar re st h im fo r vio la tin g Fl a. St at
. § 877. 03, an d, thu s, tha t the re w as no b as is f or se ar ch ing him inc ide nt to a law fu l arr es t. Mo re spe ci fi ca lly , L y ons say s th at , be ca use his state m en ts did not inf lic t i nj ur y or te nd t o inci te an im

m ed ia te br ea chof

the pe ac e, his be ha vio r did no t constitu te disorderly conduct un der Florida law . W e d is ag ree. “Un d e r t h e F o u rt h a n dF o u rt e e n t h Ame n d men t s , a n a rr e s t i n g o f f i c e r may,
w ith out aw ar rant[ , ] se ar chape rs on v al idl y arr es te d. ” Mi ch igan v. D eF ill ipp o, 443 U
. S. 31, 35, 99 S
. Ct
. 262 7, 61 L
. E d. 2d 3 43 ( 1979 ). In tur n, “ the Co nst itu tio n pe rm its an of

fi ce r to arr es t a

sus pe ct w ith out aw ar rant i f the re is pr oba

ble c au se to be lie ve tha t the sus pe ct ha s co m m itt ed or is co m

m itt ing anof

fe nse . ” I d. a t 36
. “ Fo r pr oba ble c au se to ex ist , both f ed er al an d Fl or ida l awsay that an arr es t m

ust be ob jec tiv el y r ea sona ble ba se d onthe tot al ity

of the c ir cu m stanc es . ” L ee v. F er raro , 284 F. 3d 1 18 8, 11 95 ( 11th C ir
. 200 2)
. “ T his standard is m et w he n th e fa ct s and ci rc um stanc es w ith in the of fi ce r’ s kn ow le dge , of wh ic h he or she ha s r ea sona

bly tr ustw orthy

inf orm at ion , w oul d c au se apr ude nt p er son to b el ie ve , under the ci rc um stanc es sho w n, tha t the sus pe ct ha s c om m itt ed , is co m

m itt in g, or is abo ut t o
co m m it an off en se .” Id . (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
.11

“ T he va lid ity

of the a rr es t do es not de pe nd on whe the r the sus pe ct a ct ua lly
co m m itt ed ac ri m e; the m er e fa ct

tha t the sus pe ct is la te r ac qui tte d of the of fe nse f or which he is arr ested is irrelevant to the validityof the arr est.” De Fillippo , 443 U. S. at 36. Th u s , the disp ositiv e question in this case is whether, at the tim e L y ons was
ar re ste d, ba se d onthe tot al ity of th e fa ct s and c ir cu m stanc es w ith in D et ec tiv e G ed er ian’ s kn ow le dge , the re w as pr oba ble ca use to b el ie ve L y ons ha d c om m itt ed the
cr im e of dis or de rl y co nduc t. O n thi s re co rd , w e co nc lud e that pr oba ble c au se e xis te d. L y ons w as a rr es te d f

or dis or de rl y

c ondu ct in vio la tio n of Fl a. St at
. § 87 7. 03, which provides that [w ] h o e v e r

c o m m i t s s u c h a c t s a s a r e o f

an a tu r e t o c o rr

up tt h e p ubl ic m or al s, or outra ge the se nse of pub lic de ce nc y , or

a ff ec t the pe ac e an d qui et of pe rs ons w ho m ay

w itn es s th em , or

e nga ge s inbr aw lin g or figh tin g, or

e nga ge s insuc h c ondu ct a s to c onst itu te abr ea chof the pe ace or dis or de rl y

c ondu ct , sha ll be gui lty

of am isd em eanor

of the se co nd d eg re e, pun ish ab le a s pr ovi de d in s. 775
. 082 or

s. 775
. 083. A s apr el im inary

m at te r, w e not e tha t unde r Fl or ida law , w he re the ba sis f or a n arr es t unde r § 87 7. 03 i s sp ee chonl y , the statut e’ s a ppl ic at ionis lim ite d: [W ] e nowli m it the appl ic at io n of S ec tio n 87 7. 03 so tha t i t sh al l he reaf te r on ly app ly eith er t o wo rd s wh ic h ‘by the ir ver y ut te ran ce . . . i n fl i ct i n ju ry o r te n d t o i n ci t e an i m m ed i at e b re ac h o f t h e p ea ce ,’ Whit e v. S t a t e , 3 30 S o. 2d

a t7 ; s ee Ch ap linsk y

v. N ewHam

pshire, 315 U. S. 568, 572 , 62 S
. Ct
. 766 , 86 L
. E d. 103 1 (194 2) ; or to wor ds, known to be fa lse , r ep ortin g so m e phy sic al ha zard i n cir cu m stanc es w he re suc h a rep or t cr eat es a cl ear a nd pre se nt da ng er o f bo di ly ha r m to ot he rs . . . . W iththe se tw o e xc ep tio ns, S ec tio n 87 7. 03 s houl d no t b e read to12

pros cr ibe the use of

langua ge in an y

f as hio n w ha tso ev er . ( E m pha sis added). St at e v. S aunde rs , 339 S o. 2d 641, 644 (F la
. 1976 ) (e m pha sis ad de d)
. T he li m itatio n dis cu sse d inS aunde rs co nc er ns ar re sts fo r spe ec h on ly
. S inc e L y ons’ s c ondu ct did not c onsi st o f spe ec h on ly , the li m itatio n is not r el ev an t t o ou r an al y sis
. Based on our care ful reviewof Florida law, it is equally clear that challenged
co nduct that inv olv es som ethin g m or e than “ m er e spe ec h” r em ai ns s ubj ec t t o § 877. 03. S ee , e. g. , C. L
. B. v. S ta te , 689 S o. 2d 1 171, 117 2 ( Fl a. D ist
. Ct
. App. 199 7) (h old ing tha t de fe ndant’ s no nve rb al a ct s, w hic h incl ude d r ep ea te dly appr oa ch ing pol ic e of fi ce r, in co m

bin at ionw ithhis spe ec h, vio la te d § 8 77. 03) ; W
. M. v. S ta te , 491 So
. 2d 3 35, 336 ( Fl a. D ist
. Ct
. App. 1986 ) (f ind ing tha t def

en da nt’ s cond

uc t duri ng
a tr af fi c sto p, w hic h dr ew a larg e host ile c ro w d to the sc en e, c onst itu te d di sor de rl y conduct); Delaney

v. S tate, 489 So. 2d 891 , 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986 ) ( upho ldi ng probable cause to arre st and conv iction un der § 877.03 where “ appellant’ s conduct consist ed of m ore than his ar guably ‘ protected’ speech” and such cond uct “ precluded [the ] [ o] ff

icer .
. . f ro m inv es tig at ing
. . . by

be ing lou d and a

busi ve , c ont inu al ly int er ru pti ng [ the of

fi ce r’ s] inv es tig at ion
. . . , a nd i gnor ing [ the of fi ce r’ s] r eque st t o
wa it his tu rn.” ).13

H er e, giv enthe tot al ity

of the c ir cu m stanc es f

ac ing the of

fi ce rs on the nig ht o f Ly ons’s ar

rest, we rea dily

conclude that the facts and circum sta nces provided an adequate basis for O ffice r G ederian to rea sonablybelieve that Ly ons had com m itted
or wa s about to com

m it a v i olation of § 877.03. In addition to h is speech, w hich consist ed of y elling ob sceni t i es an d a ra cial epithet, L y ons engag ed in non -verbal conduct, which G ederian re asonablyperce ived as “ aggres s i v e. ” T his cond uct inc lud ed r unni ng up to G ed er ian m

ult ipl e tim es w hil e G ed er ian w as tr y ing to dis pe rs e a large crow d, am ount ing to no less than 30 or 40 and po ssibl y exceeding 100 peo ple. T he m ag istrate j udge f

ound that L y ons’ s c ondu ct

int er fe re d w iththe of

fi ce rs ’ dispersal attem

p t s. A lthou gh Gederian repeatedly warned Ly ons to leave the ar ea be tw ee n 10 a nd 1 5 ti m es , L y ons re fu se d to c om pl y . I t w as abus y

nig ht i n th e

“ en te rt ai nm en t di str ic t, ” w he re the bars w er e loc at ed , an d th e pol ic e ha d c om e to the
sc en e in r es pons e to r ep orts o f se ve ral fights tha t e ve nin g. I nde ed , a t so m e poi nt dur ing the of

fi ce rs ’ dis pe rs al e ff

orts, m em be rs of the c ro w d th re w tw o bot tle s at the of fi ce rs ( al tho ugh the re is no indic at ion L y ons thr ew an ythi ng at the of fi ce rs ). A ga in, there w ere onlyfive offic ers at the sce ne com pared to a crowd of at least 30 to over 100 p eople. S im

ply put, based on the presence of all these factors, which have been
co nsi de re d invari ous Fl or ida dis or de rl y

c ondu ct c as es , Ge de ri anr ea sona

bly c oul d ha v e b elieved that Ly ons had comm itted or was a bout to com

m it a violation of §14

8 7 7 .0 3 . Ac co rd i n g l y, we c an d i s ce rn n o er ro r i n t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s d en i al o f L yon s ’s
m ot io n t o s up pr es s t he bu ll et s fo un d d ur in g a sea rch in ci de nt to hi s ar res t. W e ar e likewi s e u npersuaded byLy ons’s ar gum ent that the district court ab use d it s di sc re tio n by

gr an tin g th e gove rn m en t’ s m oti on in lim ine to pr ec lud e him fr om intro duc ing e vid en ce that he ha d be en ac qui tte d of dis or de rl y

c ondu ct in sta te
co urt. A ga in, our

r ev ie w of

thi s e vid en tiary

r uli ng i s f or abuse of dis cr et ion
. “ T he ap pli ca tio n of

a n a buse -o f- di sc retion re vie w r ec ogni ze s th e range of pos sib le
co nc lus ion s th e tr ia l j udge m ay r ea ch
. ” Fr az ie r, 387 F
. 3d a t 12 59. T hus, w e w ill af fi rm the dis trict court e ve n on“ ‘ oc ca sio ns i n w hic h .
. . w e w oul d have gon e the oth er w ay ha d it be en our ca ll. ’ ” Id
. (quot ing Ra sbur y v. I. R. S. (I n re Ra sbur

y ), 24 F. 3d 15 9, 168 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 4 )). When em ploy ing th is standard, “ we m ust affirm unless we find that the distric t court has m ade a c lear e rror of j udgm ent, or has applied the wrong legal standard.” I d. (c itation o m itted). L y ons ar gue s tha t ev ide nc e of his a cquit ta l w as r el ev an t t o sh owthat D et ec tiv e Ge derian w as biased against him and m ight have planted the bul lets on him , and that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng v iol at ed

his F if th and S ixth A m en dm en t r igh ts b y pr ec lud ing e ff

ec tiv e cr oss -ex am ina tio n of D et ec tiv e G ed er ian. M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y, Ly ons argues that th e district court’ s rulings p re v en ted him from arguing that D et ec tiv e G ed er ian w as pr ej udi ce d a ga ins t hi m be ca use of his sta te co urt a cquit ta l,Ly ons say s that he wa nted to cross-e x amine Ge deria n on whether

he had “ planted” the 1 bullets in retaliation for Ly ons’s ac quittal on the underlying disorde rly conduct char g es. As Ly ons conce des in the re ply

bri ef, how ever , the date on which Dete ctive Ge deria n claimed to find the bullets prece ded the date of the state court a cquittal. There fore , the acquittal itself could not have mot ivate d D e te c tiv e Ge de ri an to pla nt e vid e nc e on

Ly on s. 15 and that this m otivated De tective Gederian to em bellish his testim ony in this case. 1

“ [T]he Si xt h Am en dm en t o nl y pro te ct s cr os s- ex am in at i o n th atis rel ev an t.” Jones v. Go o d win, 982 F.2d 464 , 469 (11th Cir. 1993) (em phasis add ed); U nited St at es v. N ova ton , 271 F
. 3d 968, 100 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 1) ( “ [A ] de fe ndant i s on ly
en tit le d to c ro ss- ex am ine aw itn es s if the inf orm at ionsou gh t to be e lic ite d [ is] relevant. ” (citation and internal quotatio n m arks om itted)). T hus, atr ia l c ourt r et ai ns

“ w ide la tit

ude ins of ar as the Co nf

ro nta tio n C lause is co nc er ne d to im pose r ea sona

ble lim its on s uc h c ro ss- ex am ina tio n ba se d onc onc er ns a bout , a m ong oth er

th in gs, ha ra ssm en t, pr ej udi ce , c onf usi on o f the iss ue s, the w itn es s’ sa fe ty , or int er ro ga tio n tha t i s r ep et iti ve or

onl y m ar gin al ly re le va nt. ” Fr an ci s v. D ugge r, 908 F
. 2d 6 96, 702 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Whil e “ [c ] ro ss- ex am ina tio n of agov er nm en t ‘ star’ witne ss i s im portant, a nd
a pr es um pti on f av or s f re e cr oss -e xa m inat ion on p oss ibl e bia s, m oti ve , abil ity to pe rc ei ve a nd r em em

be r, a nd g en er al c ha ra ct er f or tr uth fu lne ss, ” U nit ed

State s v. Phelps, 733 F. 2d 14 64, 1472 (11th Cir. 1984 ) (c itation o m itted), “ the m ere fact that [a de fe nd an t] sou ght

to ex plo re bia s onthe part of apr ose cutio n w itn es s do es not16

au tom at ic al ly

voi d th e co urt’ s a

bilit y to lim it cr oss -e xa m ina tio n. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Diaz , 26 F.3d 15 33 , 15 40 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). T he F ed er al Ru le s of Ev id en ce de fi ne

“ re le va nt e vid en ce ” as “ ev ide nc e hav ing an y te nde nc y to m ak e the e xis te nc e of a ny fa ct tha t i s of c onse que nc e to the dete rm ina tio n of the a ct ionm or e pr oba

ble or le ss probable than it would be w ithou t the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Of course, even relevant evidence “ m ay

be exclu ded if it s probative value is su bstantiallyoutweighed by the dange r of

unf ai r pr ej udi ce , co nf

usi on of the iss ue s, or m isl ea din g the j ur y , or by c onsi de ratio ns o f undu e de lay , w as te of ti m e, or ne ed le ss p re se nta tio n of
cum ulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403; cf. Cook ex rel. Estate of T essier v. Sheriff of Mo nr oe Co unty , F la
. , - -- F
. 3d -

-- -, 200 5 W L 552 483 (1 1thCi r. Mar. 10, 200 5) (e xc lud ing e vid en ce of

oth er c ri m es , w ro ngs, or ac ts w he re “ an y pr oba tiv e va lue the [e vid en ce ] m igh t ha ve w as subs tanti al ly outw ei ghe d by [i ts] pot en tia l to m isl ea d th e j ury and prej udice the defendant”). At the tria l, the governm ent poin ted out th at evidence of L y ons’s state c ourt
ac qui tta l w as ir

re le va nt t o whe the r or not he vio la te d § 9 22( g)
. I nde ed , the e le m en ts of a§ 92 2( g) c ha rg e pla inl y dif fe r fr om those th at supp ort a

vio la tio n of

§ 87 7. 03. D ef en se counse l no te d th at

the e vid en ce “ isn ’ t r el ev an t a s to w he the r or not he poss es se d the am

m uni tio n, ” but ar gue d th at

it w as “ re le va nt t o th e m oti ve a nd b ia s” of De te ct ive G ed er ian - - L y ons w an te d to im pe ac h D et ec tiv e G ed er ian by a rg uin g17

th at “ he m

us t no w ju st ify” Ly on s’s ar res t. In s h o rt , t h e r el ev an ce , i f a n y, of Lyon s ’s acquittal in state co urt wa s exceedingly m arginal and, gi ven that it m ay have confused the j ur y , w e can f

ind no a buse of dis cr et ionin the dis tr ic t cour t’ s de ci sio n to e xc lud e this evid ence. Finally , L y ons argues his 235-m onth sen t en ce constitu tes cruel and unusual puni shm ent, in violation of the Eighth A m endm ent. “ The E ighth Am endm ent, w hich fo rb ids cr ue l and u nusu al pun ish m en ts, c ont ai ns a narr owpr opor

tio na lity pr inc ipl e that applies to n oncapital sentences .” Ew ing v. California, 538 U.S . 11, 20, 123 S. Ct
. 117 9, 155 L
. E d. 2d 108 (2 003) (e m pha sis ad de d) (c itatio ns an d in te rn al quo ta tio n
m arks om itted); United States v. Br an t, 62 F. 3d 36 7, 368 (11th Cir. 1995) (“ In
no n- ca pit al c as es , the E igh th A m en dm en t e nc om pa sse s, a t m ost , onl y

anarr ow pr opor tio na lity pr inc ipl e. ”)
. Mo re ove r, “ [r ] ec idi vis m ha s lon g be enr ec ogni ze d a s a le git im at e ba sis f

or inc re as ed

pun ish m en t. ” E w ing , 538 U
. S. a t 25
. Indeed, the Suprem e Court has consist ently aff irm ed the im

posit ion of lon ger sentences, e ven for non-viol ent offenses, b as ed on an offender’ s recidivism
. See E w ing , 538 U
. S. at 30- 31 (a ff irm ing a 25- y ear to lif

e se nte nc e giv en to re ci div ist w ho sto le 3 gol f cl ubs pr ic ed

a t $3 99 e ac h) ; Hutto v. Davis, 45 4 U. S. 370, 374-75 , 102 S. Ct. 703, 70 L. Ed. 2d 55 6 (1982) (affir m ing two consecutiv e sentences of 20 y ears
ea chgiv ento re ci div ist

f or pos se ssi ng 9 oun ce s of m ar ij ua naw iththe int en t t oSection 4B1.4( c) of the SentencingGuidelines provides that a findingthat a def endant 2 is an arme d car eer

criminal may , under certa in circ umstances, increa se t he cr iminal hist ory cate g ory that applies. Howe ver, be cause Ly ons had a categ ory VI criminal hi story even be fore this provision was a pplied, he wa s not affe cted by § 4B1.4( c). 18 dis tr ibu te it

a nd f or dis tr ibu tio n of m ar ij ua na ); Ru m m el v. E ste lle , 445 U
. S. 263 , 265 , 100 S. Ct
. 1133 , 63 L. E d. 2d 382 ( 1980 ) (a ff irm ing li fe se nte nc e w iththe pos sib ili ty of parole im

posed up on recidivist who “ obtain[ed] $120 .75 by false pre tenses”). T he pr ov is ion s of

18 U
. S. C. § 92 4( e) r equir e im posi tio n of

“ not le ss tha n 15 y ears” im prisonm ent upon “ arm ed car eer crim inal[s] ,” which t h e s tatute defines as
an y pe rs on w ho v iol at es § 92 2( g) af te r ha vin g be en co nvi ct ed of thr ee or m or e vio le nt fel on ie s o r “ se rio us drug of fen se [s .] ” 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) . Accor di ng ly, U.S.S.G. § 4B 1. 4( b) pr ovi de s th at

a de fe ndant’ s tot al of

fe nse le ve l m

ust be inc re as ed

to at le as t 33 when the defendant is an “ arm ed car eer crim inal.” S ee U .S .S .G . § 4B1. 4(b). 2 In the instant case, L y ons’s category VI crim inal histo ry

and the heightened tot al of fe nse le ve l r equir ed

by § 4B 1. 4( b) r es ult ed

in a gui de lin es se nte nc ing r an ge of 235 to 293 m onths. S ee U
. S. S. G
. § 5A
. T his se nte nc e w as e nti re ly the r es ult

of L y ons’ s re ci div ism
. I n f ac t, be ca use § 92 2( g) (1 ) onl y

appl ie s to ind ivi dua ls w ith pr ed ic at e con vic tio ns, L y ons co uld not ha ve be en co nvi ct ed in the f ir st p la ce ha d he not pr ev iou sly

be enc onvi ct ed

of ac ri m e puni sha

ble by m or e th an one y ear of im pr is on m en t. See 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Again, Ly ons was previouslyconvicted19

of gr an d th ef

t, a tte m pte d arm ed ro bb er

y , tw o c ount s of

r obbe ry w ith out aw ea pon, battery , sale of cocaine, sale of a subs tance in lieu of a controlled subst ance, and an ad dit ion al c ount of sa le of a con tr oll ed subs tanc e. T he le ngth of his s en te nc e w as the result of his extensiv e crim inal histo ry and it is w ell-settled law that a longer sentence
m ay be im pose d onar ec idi vis t, ba se d onhis c ri m ina l hi sto ry , e ve n if the of fe nse of convictio n is relatively

m inor in nature. In s hort, un der controlling Sup rem e Court precedent, we can find no Eighth Am endm ent violatio n in thi s case. AFFIRMED.