FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ug. 1, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15500 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 0 5 8 - C R - I P J - P WG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A N D R E W E M O R R I S G A R R E T T , a .k .a . E m a r , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 1, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ndr e w E m orr i s ( “ E m a r ” ) G a rr e ttappe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s f or2

c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne , a nd pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e nt to d is tr ib u te f

if ty g r a m s o rm o r e o f

c o c a in e b a s e , c o c a in e , a n d m a r iju a n a , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 8 4 6 . O n ap p e a l, G a rr e tt c h a lle n g e s b o th hi s c on vi ct i on and u l t i m at e s ent ence . H e a rgues that(1) ase ar ch w arra ntexec ut ed on M ar ch 8, 20 07 w as fa ci al l y def ec t i ve because i tfa i l ed t o st at e s peci fi ca l l y w hen the f a c t s oc c urr e d tha tpr ovi de d the r e qui s i t e pr obabl e c aus e f orthe s e a r c h; ( 2) the d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in r e f u s in g to s e v e rC o u n t 4 , c h a r g in g h im w ith p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e b a s e , c o c a in e a n d m a r iju a n a , f r o m th e r e m a in in g c o u n ts because the form erpert ai ned t o an ent i re l y di ff er entconspi ra cy ; (3) the di stri ct courterre d i n adm i tt i ng audi o and vi deo recordi ng s i nt o evi dence attri al because a pr ope rpr e di c a t e w a s notpr ovi de d; ( 4) the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n r e f us i ng t o s tr i ke the gove rnm e nt ’ s not i c e of s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntbe c aus e the de f i ni t i on of pr i or f e lo n y d ru g o f

f e n s e d id n o t in c lu d e p o s s e s s io n - o n ly c r im e s ; a n d ( 5 ) h is u ltim a te lif e s e n te n c e w a s c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l. F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th b e lo w , w e a f

f irm . I . G arre ttfi rs tar gu es thatw hi l e the w arra ntst at ed thatthe offi ce r r ec ei ved i n fo rm at i o n fro m a co n fi d en t i al an d rel i ab l e i n fo rm an tw i th i n th e l ast7 2 h o u rs, th e r e w a s n o in d ic a tio n o f w h e n th e b a s is f

o rth e in f o rm a n t’s a s s e r tio n s a c tu a lly occurre d. C on se qu ent l y, G arre ttcont ends, the i nform at i on coul d h ave been st al e.3

W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of am ot i on t o s uppr e s s unde ram i xe d s t a nda r d of r e vi e w , “ r e vi e w i ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c tunde rthe c l e a r l y e rr one ous st an d ard an d th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ap p l i cat i o n o f l aw t o th o se fact s de no vo . ” U ni ted S ta te s v . S i mm s , 385 F . 3d 1347, 1356 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . U nde rthe F our th A m e ndm e nt , pr obabl e c aus e onl y e xi s t s w he r e “ the i n fo rm at i o n su p p o rt i n g o f th e g o v ern m en t ’ s ap p l i cat i o n fo r a search w arran t[i s] t i m el y. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . H

a r r is , 20 F . 3d 44 5, 45 0 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). In de t e rm i ni ng t i m e l i ne s s , f a c t or s t o c ons i de ri nc l ude , “ the m a tur i ty of the i nform at i on , nature of the suspec t ed cr i m e ( di sc re t e c ri m es or on go i ng conspi ra cy ), habi t s of the a c c us e d, c ha r a c t e rof the i t e m s s ought , a nd na tur e a nd f unc t i on of

the prem i se s t o b e s ea rc hed. ” I d. “ [ S ] t a l e i nf

orm a t i on i s notf

a t a l , ” how e ve r , “ i f

the go vernm entaf

fi davi tup dat es , subst ant i at es , or corr ob orat es the st al e m at er i al . ” I d. D e s pi t e G a rr e tt ’ s a r gum e nt s t o the c ontr a ry , w e c onc l ude tha tthe w a rr a nt w a s notf a c i a l l y de f

e c t i ve . R e ga r dl e s s of

w he n the i nf

orm a ntobt a i ne d the i nform at i on thatdrug s c ou l d b e purchas ed atG arre tt ’ s r es i dence, the offi ce r ob t ai ned the se ar ch w arra ntw i thi n 7 2 h ou rs of engagi ng i n a control l ed drug bu y a t the r e s i de nc e . T hus , a ny pot e nt i a l l y s t a l e i nf orm a t i on w a s upda t e d a nd subst ant i at ed. M oreover, the se ar ch w as t o t ake pl ac e a ta l ocat i on thatw as bel i eved t o b e i nv ol ved i n an o ng oi ng drug -tra ff i cki ng conspi ra cyand w as4

oc c upi e d by am e m be rof the c ons pi r a c y , s uc h tha tthe i nf orm a t i on w oul d notbe s ta le . B e c au s e th e in f

o rm a tio n w a s n o t s ta le , s u f f ic ie n t p r o b ab le c au s e e x is te d to s u p p o r t th e f

a c ia l v a lid ity o f

th e s e a r c h w a rr a n t.

I I . G a rr e ttne xta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve s e ve r e d C ount4 f r om the r e s tof

the i ndi c tm e ntbe c aus e , he c l a i m s , i tpe r t a i ne d t o a n e nt i r e l y di f f e r e nt c ons pi r a c y tha n the one r e f e rr e d t o i n C ount1. H e a s s e r t s tha tthe j oi nde rof coun t s pre

j ud i ce d h i m because the w arra ntfor the M ar ch 20 07 se ar ch w as re l at ed to C o u n t 4 , a n d th e e v id e n c e r e c o v e r e d d u r in g th e s e a r c h w a s u s e d a t tr ia l to c o n v ic t h im o f

C o u n ts 1 a n d 3 . T w o o r m ore off

ense s m aybe charged i n the sa m e i nd i ctm enti f the offens es c ha r ge d “ a r e of

the s a m e ors i m i l a rc ha r a c t e r , ora r e ba s e d on the s a m e a c tor tr a ns a c t i on, ora r e c onne c t e d w i th orc ons t i tut e pa r t s of ac om m on s c he m e or p l an . ” F ed . R . C ri m . P . 8 (a). Im p ro p er j o i n d er u n d er R u l e 8 i s su b j ectt o h arm l ess e rr ora na l y s i s , s uc h tha t , abs e nta c tua l pr e j udi c e tha tha d as ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nj ur i ous e f f e c t o rin f lu e n c e in d e te rm in in g th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t, m is jo in d e ris h a rm le s s e rr o r . U ni te d State s v . W

at s on , 866 F . 2d 381, 384- 85 ( 11th C i r . 1989) . “ [ W ] e w i l l not r e ve r s e the de ni a l of

as e ve r a nc e m ot i on abs e ntac l e a rabus e of di s c r e t i on r e s ul t i ng i n com pel l i ng prej ud i ce agai nstw hi ch the di stri ctcourtoffe re d n o p rot ec t i on . ”5

U n i te d S ta te s v . D o wd , 451 F . 3d 1244, 1249 ( 11th C i r . ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks o m itte d ) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 3 3 5 , 1 6 6 L . E d . 2 d 2 5 0 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t o f

f e n s e s c o m m itte d in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

a n o v e r a ll c o n s p ir a c y a r e p r o p e r ly jo in e d u n d e rR u le 8 ( a ) . U ni te d State s v . D i az , 248 F . 3d 10 65 , 11 02 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). B ec ause C ou nt4 al l eged (1) an ac t i vi ty thatoccurre d w i thi n the t i m e f

r a m e of the a l l e ge d c ons pi r a c y a nd ( 2) a n a c tc ons i s t e ntw i th the a l l e ge d c ons pi r a c y , i tw a s appr opr i a t e l y j oi ne d t o the othe rc ount s . T hus , the d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in r e f u s in g to s e v e rC o u n t 4 . I I I . N ext , G arre ttar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtadm i tt ed audi o and vi deo e vi de nc e w i thoutapr ope rpr e di c a t e . H e c ont e nds tha tthe gove rnm e ntm a de no s how i ng c onc e rni ng ( 1) the c om pe t e nc e of the r e c or di ng m a c hi ne ope r a t or ; ( 2) the f i de l i ty of the e qui pm e nt ; ( 3) abs e nc e of a l t e r a t i ons t o the r e c or di ng; or( 4) a ny in d e p e n d e n t a s s u r a n c e s o f a c c u r a c y . W e rev i ew ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g s fo r ab u se o f d i scret i o n an d w i l l o n l y rev erse w h e n it h a s a f

f e c te d ad e f

e n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U ni te d State s v . W

r i ght , 392 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 76 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). A l tho ug h the go vernm entshou l d p rodu ce e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the c om pe t e nc e of ar e c or di ng m a c hi ne ope r a t or , the f i de l i ty of the e qui pm e nt , the abs e nc e of a l t e r a t i ons t o the r e c or de d m e di a , a nd the i de nt i ty of6

the spea kers , “ the tri al courthas broad di sc re t i on t o al l ow [m edi a] i nt o evi dence w i tho utsuch a s ho w i ng so l on g as there i s i nd ependentevi dence of ac cura cy . ” U ni ted Stat es v. R ee d , 88 7 F . 2d 13 98 , 14 05 (11th C i r. 19 89 ). W e have hel d that t es t i m on y thatre corded m edi a c on t ai n an accura t e r endi t i on of conv er sa t i on s that w e r e h e a r d c o n s titu te s in d e p e n d e n t in d ic iao f r e liab ility . U

ni ted Stat es v. R i c hards on , 764 F . 2d 1514, 1524 ( 11th C i r . 1985) . T hus , be c aus e a n a ge nta nd in f o rm a n t te s tif

ie d a s to th e a c c u r a c y a n d r e liab ility o f th e v id e o a n d a u d io r e c o r d in g s , s u f

f ic ie n t in d ic iao f

r e liab ility e x is te d to a d m it th e r e c o r d in g s in to e v id e n c e a t tr ia l. A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in a d m ittin g th e e v id e n c e . I V . G a rr e tta l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n r e f us i ng t o s tr i ke the gove rnm e nt ’ s not i c e of

s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e ntbe c aus e the de f i ni t i on of apr i or f e lo n y d ru g o f

f e n s e d id n o t in c lu d e p o s s e s s io n - o n ly c r im e s . W e r e v ie w th e ap p lic a tio n o f la w to s e n te n c in g is s u e s d e n o v o . U ni ted State s v . Me

j i as , 47 F . 3d 401, 403 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . I f a ny pe r s on com m i t s avi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1) or of §§ 84 9, 85 9, 86 0, or 86 1 aft er tw o o r m ore pri or conv i ct i on s f or a f el on y drug o ff

ense have becom e f

i nal , such pe r s on s ha l l be s e nt e nc e d t o am a nda t ory t e rm of l i f e i m pr i s onm e ntw i thout7

rel ease. 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A ). A fel o n y d ru g o ffen se i s d efi n ed as an o ffen se tha ti s puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm e ntf orm or e tha n one y e a runde ra ny l a w of the U n ite d S ta te s o ras ta te . 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 0 2 ( 4 4 ) . U nd erA l abam a l aw , a f el on y i s a ny offe nse f

or w hi ch a s ent ence t o a t erm o f im p r is o n m e n t in e x c e s s o f o n e y e a ris a u th o r iz e d . A la . C o d e § 1 3 A - 1 - 2 ( 8 ) . U n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n o f

ac o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i s aCl a s s C f e l o n y u n d e rA l ab a ma L a w w hi c h i s puni s habl e by notm or e tha n 10 y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e ntorl e s s tha n one y e a ra nd one da y . A l a . C ode §§ 13A - 12- 212; 13A - 5- 6( a ) ( 3) . W e ha ve he l d, m or e ove r , tha tapr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on i n A l aba m af orpos s e s s i on of

pe nt a z oc i ne m e e ts th e r e q u ir e m e n ts f o re n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r§ 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . U ni ted Stat es v. W estry , 5 2 4 F .3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 2 0 n .1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . B e c aus e G a rr e tt ’ s 2001 c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on w a s s ubj e c tt o puni s hm e nt by m ore than o ne ye arand w e have hel d thatfe l on y drug o ff ense s are no tl i m i t ed t o d i stri b u t i o n -o n l y cri m es, G arrett ’ s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n w as a fel o n y d ru g o ffen se unde r§ 802( 44) . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n r e f us i ng t o s tr i ke th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e n h a n c e m e n t n o tic e . V . F i na l l y , G a rr e tta r gue s tha thi s m a nda t ory l i f e s e nt e nc e c ons t i tut e s c rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e ntbe c aus e hi s i nvol ve m e nti n the pr e s e ntc r i m e w a s m i ni m a l a nd8

hi s tw o p ri or cr i m es w er e non -vi ol entand v i ct i m l es s. T hu s, he cont ends, a l i fe s e n te n c e is g r o s s ly d is p r o p o r tio n a te to th e c r im e . W e r e v ie w C o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e s to as e n te n c e d e n o v o . U ni ted Stat es v. L y ons , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t p r o h ib its cru el an d u n u su al p u n i sh m en t . U . S . C o n st . am en d . V III. “ In n o n -cap i t al cases, th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t e n c o m p a s s e s , a t m o s t, o n ly an a rr o w p r o p o r tio n a lity pri nci pl e. ” U

ni te d State s v . B r ant , 6 2 F .3 d 3 6 7 , 3 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A s e n te n c e w h ic h is n o t o th e rw is e c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l d o e s n o t b e c o m e s o s im p ly because i ti s “ m andat ory. ” Se e i d. W e h a v e p r e v io u s ly h e ld , m o r e o v e r , th a t a m a n d a to ry lif

e s e n te n c e u n d e r§ 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) w a s n o t c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . W

illis , 9 5 6 F .2 d 2 4 8 , 2 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . G a rr e ttha s f

a i l e d t o s how tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s gr os s l y di s pr opor t i ona t e t o the s e r i ous ne s s of

the of f e ns e s , a nd w e ha ve pr e vi ous l y uphe l d l i f e s e nt e nc e s f

or d is tr ib u tio n . T h u s , h e h a s f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t h is s e n te n c e is c ru e l o ru n u s u a l. M or e ove r , be c aus e of

hi s tw o pr i ordrug f

e l ony c onvi c t i ons , the l i f e s e nt e nc e he r e c e iv e d w a s m a n d a te d b y s ta tu te . See 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A ). A cco rd i n g l y, w e a f f irm . AF F I RME D.