[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 17 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 02 51 -J SM- MAP-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DEMETRIUM SI LAS SHAW , 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 fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J ul y 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Dem etriu m

Sil as Sh aw ap pe al s fr om hi s co nv ic ti on s an d 2 40 -m on thto ta l se nt en ce fo r co ns pi rin g t o p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gra m s o r m or e o f

Case: 10-15178 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 1 of 9crac k c oc ai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) & (b )(1 )(A)(i ii ) an d 8 46 , and

po ss es si ng with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gra m s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne , invi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) & (b )(1 )(A)(i ii ). On ap pe al , Shaw arg ue s t ha 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 zedas ares ul t o f a se arch of h is pro pe rty becaus e th e aff id av itun de rlyin g t he sea rch warran t al le ge dl y co nt ai ne d m at eri al m is rep res en ta ti on s an d o m is si on s. He n ex t ar gu es th atth e co urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b as edon ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce tha t o ne of t he witne ss es ag ai ns t h im ha d m ad e fal se st at em en ts du rin g h is tes ti m on y . Fin al ly, Sh aw arg ue s t ha t h e sh ou ldha ve be en se nt en cedun de r th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0 (“ FSA”), Pub. L. No. 1 11 -2 20 , 12 4 S ta t. 2 37 2 (2 01 0) , bec au se he was s en te nc edaft er the Act’s ef fect iv e d at e. I.

“ Rev ie w of adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s i s a m ix ed qu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Delan cy , 50 2 F .3d12 97 , 13 04 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ). W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs for cle ar erro r an d i ts in te rp ret at io n a ndap pl ic at io n o f th e la w de n ov o, co ns tru in g a ll fact s i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p rev ai li ng pa rty. Id. Fo r a s earc h warran t t o b e v al id , itm us t b e supp orte d b y

pro babl e cau se . U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. “ Pro babl e cau se to supp ort a s earc h warran t ex is ts when 2 Case: 10-15178 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 2 of 9th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces all ow a c on cl us io n t ha t t he re i s a f ai r pr ob ab il it y of fin di ng co ntrab an d o r ev id en ce ata pa rti cu la r lo cat io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bru nd id ge , 17 0 F .3d13 50 , 13 52 (11 thCir . 19 99 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e se arch warra ntaffi da vi t m

us t “ st at e fac ts su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify a con cl us io n t ha t ev id en ce orco nt rab an d wi ll pro babl y be fou ndat t he pre m is es to be sea rch ed .” Uni te d St at es v. Ma rti n, 2 97 F.3d13 08 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) .

“ [T]he affi da vi t s ho ul d e st ab li sh a co nn ect io n b etween th e d efen da ntan d t he res id en ce t o b e se arch edan d ali nkbe twee n t he res id en ce an d a ny crim in al act iv ity .” Id . Sear ch warran t af

fid av it s ar e p res um

pt iv el y va li d. Fra nk s v . Delawa re, 4 38 U.S. 15 4, 1 71 , 98 S. Ct. 2 67 4, 2 68 4 (1 97 8) . Howev er, a s earc h warran t m ay be vo id edan d t he fru it s o f th e se arch ex cl ud edif the warran t af fid av itco nt ai ne d cert ai n m is rep res en ta ti on s o r omiss io ns . Id. at15 5- 56 , 98 S. Ct. at26 76 . A de fen da ntm

us t s ho w th at(1) “ th e al le ge d m is rep res en ta ti on s o r omiss io ns were kn owi ng ly or reck le ss ly m ad e” an d (2 ) “ th e res ul t o f ex cl ud in g t he all eg ed m is rep res en ta ti on s an d i nc lu di ng th e al le ge d o m is si on s wo ul d h av e b een a la ckof pr ob ab le cau se foris su an ce o f th e warra nt s.” Un it edSta te s v . Nov at on , 27 1 F .3d 96 8, 9 86 -8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) .

3

Case: 10-15178 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 3 of 9Inth is cas e, th e rec or d s ho ws t ha t u nd erco ve r Dep ut ie s Will ia m Sim s an d Dem etriu s Di xo n p ur ch as edcrac k c oc ai ne fro m Edd ie Lig hton Marc h 1 1, 1 3, 1 8, an d 3 1, 2 00 9. Du rin g t he Marc h 1 1 s al e, th e d ep ut ie s ac co m pani edLig htto Sh aw’s res id en ce, wh ere Li gh t ap pe aredto en te r th e si de of S ha w’ s h ou se an d th enreturne d wi th crac k c oc ai ne to sel l t o t he de pu ti es . Duri ng th e March 13 bu y , th e d ep ut ie s o bs erv edLig htwalkin th e d ire ct io n o f Sh aw’s res id en ce an d t he n return wi th crac k c oc ai ne . For t he Marc h 1 8 b uy, dep ut ie s ac tu al ly saw Lig ht en te r Sh aw’s ho us e an d re tu rnwith d ru gs . On Ma rch 31 , th e d ep ut ie s p ur ch as eda la rg er qua nt ity

of c rackco cai ne fro m

Lig ht , alt ho ug h t hi s t ran sa ct io n d idno t o ccu r atSh aw’s res id en ce, n ordi d t he de pu ti es see Lig htco m e fro m Sh aw’s res id en ce. On Ap ril 2, 2 00 9, Dep ut y Sim s o bt ai ne d asea rch warran t fo r Sh aw’s res id en ce an d an a rres t warran t fo r Sh aw. In h is affi da vi t fo r a warra nt , Depu ty Si m s s ai d, i nt er al ia , th athe ha d wi tn es se d Li gh t ac tu al ly ent er Sh aw’s res id en ce du rin g t he Marc h 1 1 a nd18 sal es . Depu ty Sim s o m it te d a ll refe ren ces to th e Mar ch31 dru g b uy, whi ch ha d n otoc cu rredat S ha w’ s re si de nc e. The s earc h o f Sh aw’s res id en ce an d v eh ic le s turne d up 4 05 .2 g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne , 76 gra m s of co cai ne po wde r, an d 4 14 gra m s o f m ari juan a, as well as s cal es , han dg un s, an d amm un it io n.

4

Case: 10-15178 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 4 of 9Dur in g t he he ari ng to supp res s t hi s ev id en ce, Dep ut y Sim s t es ti fie d tha t h e ha d n otactua ll y

witne ss edLig hten te r Sh aw’s ho us e o n M arch 11 . Rath er, Dep ut y Si m s h adsee n Li gh t wal k up t he dri ve way to ward s t he si de of t he ho us e in to an areaen cl os edby a six -fo otfen ce an d c on ta in in g awhee lc ha ir r am p i nt o S ha w’ s be dr oo m , th enreturn s ho rtl y with t he crac k c oc ai ne . Sha w arg ue s t ha t t hi s m is st at em en t, co m

bi ne d wi thth e fai lu re t o m en ti on th e Ma rch 31 dru g b uy, ren de rs th e warra ntvo id , andth us th e fru it s o f th e warra ntsh ou ldhave be en ex cl ud ed . Dep ut y Sim s ad m it te d t ha t i t “ was a po orch oi ce o f wor ds ” to say tha t Li gh t ha d a ctua ll y

en te redSh aw’s ho us e. Howev er, the re i s n o e vi de nc e th atDepu ty Si m s i nt en de d t o m is le adth e m ag is tra te jud ge with a“ de li be rat e fal se ho od .” Fran ks , 43 8 U.S. at17 1, 9 8 S . Ct. at26 84 . Even if t he warran t co nt ai ne d e xa ct ly wha t Dep ut y

Sim s s aw, th ere s ti ll wou ldha ve be enpro babl e cau se to sea rch Sh aw’s res id en ce g iv enth e rea so nabl e in fere nc e th atLig htin de edha d g on e in to th e h ou se on Marc h 1 1, as well as t he factth atth e d ep ut ie s h adactua ll y see n Li gh t en te r Sh aw’s res id en ce dur in g t he Marc h 1 8 b uy. Sh aw al so cla im s t ha t o m it ti ng th e March 31 dru g b uy rend eredth e warra nt vo id . Thatis , he a rg ue s t ha t ev enth ou gh th e d ep ut ie s h adno di rectev id en ce tha t th e la stdru g p ur ch as e in vo lv edSh aw’s res id en ce i n a ny way , Depu ty Sim s s ti ll 5 Case: 10-15178 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 5 of 9sh ou ldha ve in cl ud editin hi s af fid av itfora warra ntto sea rch Sh aw’s res id en ce. Sh aw arg ue s t ha t t he Marc h 3 1 b uy ten de d t o s ho w th atLig htwas g et ti ng co cai ne fro m a so ur ce o th er than S haw’ s re si de nc e. Howev er, the ex is te nc e o f th is fin al pu rch as e d idno t d im in is h t he pro babl e cau se ob ta in eddu rin g t he pre vi ou s pu rch as es wher e Lig htha d b een see n e nt eri ng Sh aw’s pr op ert y an d re tu rn in g wi th crac k c oc ai ne . The Ma rch 31 bu y di d n otpro du ce ev id en ce tha t Li gh t h adbe en ob ta in in g t he co cai ne fro m a so ur ce o th er tha n S ha w. In o th er wo rd s, Sh aw can no t s ho w th atin cl ud in g t he Marc h 3 1 p ur ch as e in th e aff id av itwou ldha ve de st ro y edth e p ro babl e cau se fro m th e p rev io us co cai ne pu rch as es at S ha w’ s pr op erty . Nov at on , 27 1 F .3dat 9 86 -8 7. Bec au se th e aff

id av itsupp orti ng th e se arch warran t o f Sh aw’s pr op ert y di d no t co nt ai n m is rep res en ta ti on s o r omiss io ns th atwere kno win gl y or r eck le ss ly m ad e, an d b ecau se th ere was pro babl e cau se th atco nt rab an d wo ul d b e fo un d a t Sh aw’s pr op ert y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g S ha w’ s m ot io n t o supp res s ev id en ce s ei zeddu rin g t he ex ecu ti onof t ha t warran t. II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f anev id en ti ary he ari ng foranab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Mas se y , 89 F.3d14 33 , 14 43 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ).

6 Case: 10-15178 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 6 of 9A di st ric t co urt m ay gra nta de fen dant ’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b as edon ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce i f th e m ot io n i s fi le d wi th in th ree years a fte r th e ve rd ic t an d t he in te res t o f jus ti ce s o re qu ire s. Fed . R. Cri m . P. 33 (a), (b )(1 ). A ne w tri al ba se d o n n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce i s warran te d o nl y if (1 ) th e ev id en ce was di sc ov eredaft er tria l; (2) th e d efen da ntex erci se d due care to di sc ov er the ev id en ce; (3) th e ev id en ce was no t s im pl y cu m ul at iv e o r im

pe ach in g; (4) th e ev id en ce was m at eri al ; an d (5 ) th e ev id en ce’s n atur e was su ch th ata ne w tri al wou ldpro babl y

pro du ce a d iff

eren t re su lt . W ei ss v. Un it edSta te s, 1 22 F.2d67 5, 69 1 (5 thCir . 19 41 ). “ The fai lu re t o s at is fy an y on e o f th es e el em en ts is fat al to a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l.” Un it edSta te s v . Lee , 68 F.3d12 67 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . “ [T]he d efen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f jus ti fy in g ane w tri al .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cam

pa , 45 9 F .3d11 21 , 11 51 (11 thCir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . At Sh aw’s tri al , Jam es Onertes ti fie d t ha t h e u se d t o re gu la rly bu y co cai ne fro m Co rey Dun n, wh o s ai d t ha t t he dru gs were p ro vi de d b y Sh aw. AfterSh aw was co nv ic te d, h e m ov edfora ne w tri al aft er d is co ve rin g t ha t On er, i n acal l fr om jail , all eg ed ly saidth athe di d n otkn ow Sh aw an d p lann edto tes ti fy ag ai ns t h im

to reduc e One r’s own sen te nc e. The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t hi s m ot io n wi th ou t a he ari ng .

7

Case: 10-15178 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 7 of 9A def en da ntis no t en ti tl edto anev id en ti ary he ari ng on a Fed . R. Cri m . P. 33 m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l i f “ th e acu m enga in edby a tria l ju dg e o ve r th e co ur se of th e p ro ceed in gs [m ad e h im ] well qu al ifi edto rul e o n t he [m ot io n] witho uta he ari ng .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sch le i, 1 22 F.3d94 4, 9 94 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . In Un it edSta te s v . Gates , 10 F.3d76 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) , we hel d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g t he de fen da nta he ari ng on hi s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l whe re h is co -d efen da ntm ad e p os t-t ria l ex cu lp at ory st at em en ts . Id. at76 7- 68 . In Uni te d S ta te s v . Cul li ve r, 17 F.3d34 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) , we hel d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin gra nt in g t he de fen da nt ’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l wi th ou t fi rs t h ol di ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng as r eque st edby the go ve rn m en t, wh ere t ha t m ot io n was ba se d o n n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce o f anap pa ren t wi tn es s re can ta ti on . Id. at 35 0- 51 . Fin al ly, in Uni te d S ta te s v . Jerni ga n, 3 41 F.3d12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ), we he ldth atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he de fen dant ’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l wi th ou t fi rs t co nduc ti ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng be cau se th e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly con cl ud edth athi s cl ai m edne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce was un li ke ly to h av e g en erat eda di ffer en t re su ltat t ria l. Id . at 1 28 7- 89 . At m os t, the ev id en ce p ro ffer edby Shaw m erel y ten de d t o i m

pe ach Oner ’s te st im on y , whi ch do es no t ri se to th e le ve l fo r a n ew tr ia l t o b e g ran te d. Un it ed St at es v. Th om

ps on , 42 2 F .3d 12 85 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Add it io na ll y , othe r 8 Case: 10-15178 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 8 of 9co m

m en ts by O ne r du rin g the tel ep ho ne cal l i nd ic at edth athe actua ll y was fa m il ia r wit h S ha w, as On er kne w Sha w’ s n ic kn am e an d kne w th athe was apa rap le gi c. Giv enth is ev id en ce, Sh aw can no t s ho w th ata ne w tri al pro babl y wou ldha ve pr oduc eda di ffer en t o ut co m e, an d t he di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly den ie d S ha w’ s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Id . III. W e rev ie w de no vo th e le ga l que st io n o f whe th er the FSA ap pl ie s t o de fen da nt s wh o h adno t b eensen te nc edby the da te of t he FSA’s en act m en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Oli n C or p., 1 07 F.3d15 06 , 15 09 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). The Supr em e Co urt h as rece nt ly con cl ud edth at“ Co ng res s i nt en de d t he Fai r Sen te nc in g Act ’s m or e le ni en t p en al ti es to ap pl y to th os e o ffen de rs who se cri m es pr eced edAug us t 3 , 20 10 , bu t wh o a re s en te nc edaft er tha t d at e.” Dor se y v. Un it ed St at es , No. 1 1- 56 83 , 20 12 W L 23 44 46 3, s li p o p. at11 (U.S. Ju ne 21 , 20 12 ). Sh aw’s crac k c oc ai ne off en se s o ccu rredin Marc h 2 00 9, b uthe was n ot se nt en cedun ti l Oct ob er 2 8, 2 01 0— aft er the FSA wen t i nt o e ffec t. Acco rd in gl y , we rem an d S ha w’ s ca se to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r re-s en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th Dor se y . AFFIR MED IN PART, VACATED AN D REMANDED IN PART. 1 Any pendingmotion is DENI ED. 1 9 Case: 10-15178 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 9 of 9