[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 12 48 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 02 40 -KD-N-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOSE NORIEGA, Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jul y 25 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT andCARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andMICKLE, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Honora ble Stephan P. Mickle, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. Case: 10-12480 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 1 of 6Thi s i s o ursec on d o pi ni on inth is cas e. Jo se Nori eg a ap pe al s h is

co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy andpo ss es si on of m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te . He co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e supp res se d e vi de nc e se iz edat h is Ch ut ne y Driv e p ro pe rty, argu in g t ha t Co rp or al W il bu r W il li am s’ pro te ct iv e swe ep of hi s p ro pe rty was il le ga l. He al so co nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t d idno t p res en t en ou ghev id en ce t o s up po rt h is co ns pi racy con vi ct io n. In ou r fi rs t o pi ni on , we is su eda li m it edrem an d s o t ha t the di st ric t co urt co ul d m ak e a fi nd in g re la te d t o whe th er the ev id en ce s ei zedat No rie ga ’s pro pe rty was ad m is si bl e u nd er the in de pe nd en t s ou rce e xc ep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry rul e, ev enif the pro te ct iv e swe ep was i ll eg al . Uni te d S ta te s v . Nori eg a, 67 6 F .3d12 52 , 12 63 –6 4 (1 1t h C ir. 20 12 ). The d is tri ctco urt h as m ad e th atfact fin di ng , andwe ha ve th e cas e o nc e ag ai n. I. The fir stti m e th is cas e was be fo re u s, we n ot edth at“ [t]he leg al it y of the pr ot ect iv e swe ep is a di ffi cu ltqu es ti on ,” bu t we re co gn iz edth at , if the pro te ct iv e swe ep was i ll eg al , th e ev id en ce m ig htha ve be enpro pe rly adm it te d a nyway un de r th e in de pe nd en t s ou rce e xc ep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry rul e. Id. at12 60 (qu ot at io n 1

We set out the fac ts and proce dural history of this casein our ea

rlier opinion. 1 See Norieg a, 676 F .3d at 1256–58. For brevity , we will not repe at them her e. 2 Case: 10-12480 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 2 of 6m ark s o m it te d) . W e ap pl ie d the two -p artin de pe nd en t s ou rce e xc ep ti on tes t t o

de te rm in e whe th er the di st ric t co urt h adpro pe rly adm it te d t he ev id en ce re gard le ss of whet he r th e p ro te ct iv e swe ep was i ll eg al . See i d. at12 60 –6 3. Th e fi rs t thi ng we di d was ex ci se fro m

Co rp or al W il li am s’ sea rch warran t af fid av itth e in fo rm at io n h e g ai ne d dur in g the arg uabl y il le ga l p ro te ct iv e swe ep , andwe de te rm in edth atth e rem ai ni ng in fo rm at io n i n tha t af fid av itwas e no ug h t o s up po rt a p ro babl e cau se fin di ng . See i d. at12 60 –6 1. W e th enask ed“whe th er Co rp or al W il li am s’ dec is io n t o s eekth e warra nt was pro m pt edby wha t h e sa w du rin g t he pro te ct iv e swe ep .” Id . at 1 26 3 (al te rat io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Becau se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t res ol ve th atfactua l que st io n wh enitrul edon Nori eg a’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s, we rem an de d t he cas e “ fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f al lo win g [t he di st ric t co urt] to fin d whe th er Co rp or al W il li am s wo ul d h av e so ug htth e o ral sea rch warran t fo r th e Ch ut ne y Driv e h ou se an d o utbu il di ng if h e h adno t al ready co nduc te d the pr ot ect iv e swe ep of t ha t h ou se .” Id . In d oi ng so , we hel d: If Will iam s wo ul d h av e so ug htth e warra ntany way , th e d is tri ctco urt di d n oterr i n d en y in g the m ot io n t o s up pr es s u nd er the in de pe nd en t so ur ce ex cep ti onto th e ex cl us io na ry rul e, an d we c anm ov e o n t o Nor ie ga ’s su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce cl ai m , whi ch we do no t re ach at th is ti m e. Bu t i f W il li am s wo ul d n otha ve so ug htth e warra ntanyway , we wil l h av e to de ci de whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt erredinde te rm in in g th atth e p ro te ct iv e swe ep of No rie ga ’s ho us e d idno t v io la te th e 3 Case: 10-12480 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 3 of 6Fo urth Am en dm en t.

Id . On re m an d, the di st ric t co urt fo un d “ as a m at te r of factth at , eve n i f he ha d no t fi rs t co nduc te d apro te ct iv e swe ep of t he Ch utne y Driv e h ou se , [Co rp or al ] W il li am s wo ul d h av e so ug hta warrantto sea rch th atho us e an d i ts ou tb ui ld in g.” 2 Fo r th atreas on , th e ev id en ce was adm is si bl e u nd er the in de pe nd en t s ou rce ex cep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry rul e ev enif t he pro te ct iv e swe ep was i ll eg al . See Nor ie ga , 67 6 F .3dat 1 26 3. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in adm it ti ng it . III. W e tu rnne xtto Nori eg a’s co nt en ti on th atth e g ov ern m en t d idno t p res en t en ou ghev id en ce t o s up po rt h is co nv ic ti on forco ns pi racy to p os se ss m ari juan a with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te . Nori eg a arg ue s t ha t “ no th in g e xi st s t o c on ne ctth e th ree ho us es (an d t he in di vi du al s fo un d a t ea ch ).” “ W e rev ie w de n ov o t he su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l, an d we wi ll no t d is tu rb a gu il ty verd ic t unl es s, gi ve n t he ev id en ce i n t he reco rd , no tri er o f fac t co ul d h av e fo un d g ui ltbe y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Un it edSta te s v . Whi te , 66 3 F .3d12 07 , 12 13 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) Norieg a conte nds that the district court’s f inding wa s clea

rly err oneous. We disagree . 2 The c ourt based its findingon Corporal Willi ams’ testimony at the hea

ringon rema

nd, which the court found “ to be cr edible in all re spects.” We “g ive par ticular de fer ence to cre dibilit y deter minations of a fa ct-finde r who ha d the opportunity to see live testimony .” See United States v. L ebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000, 1009 (11th Cir. 2012). 4 Case: 10-12480 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 4 of 6(quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . “ Inrev ie win g t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, we l oo k atth e rec or d i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e v erd ic t an d d raw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es an d re so lv e al l que st io ns of c red ib il it y init s favo r.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . To p ro ve th atNori eg a co m m it te d c on sp ira cy

to po ss es s m ari

juan a with in te ntto di st rib ut e, th e g ov ern m en t h adto est ab li sh : (1 ) th e ex is te nc e o f an ag reem en t b etweentwo or m or e p ers on s fo r so m eo ne to po ss es s m ari juan a with in te ntto di st rib ut e; (2) “ th at[Nor ie ga ] kn ew of th e co ns pi rat or ia l g oa l” ; an d (3 )

“ th athe kn owi ng ly j oi ne d o r pa rti ci pa te d i n t he il le ga l v en tu re.” Un it edSta te s v . Bro wn, 5 87 F.3d10 82 , 10 89 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ Bec au se co ns pi raci es are se cret iv e b y

na tu re, the ex is te nc e o f anag reem en t an d [No rie ga ’s] parti ci pa ti on in th e co ns pi racy m ay

be pro ve n e nt ire ly from

cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Whi te , 66 3 F.3 d a t 1 21 4 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The reco rdco nt ai ns am

pl e ev id en ce co nn ect in g No rie ga , Sab in a, an d Hu ezo in a m ari juan a-g ro win g c on sp ira cy . Pol ic e o ffi cers fou ndNori eg a drin ki ng be er with S ab in a an d Hu ezo at No rie ga ’s Chu tn ey Driv e p ro pe rty, where p ol ic e o ffi cers fo un d am ari

juan a-g ro win g o pe rat io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Baco n, 5 98 F.3d77 2, 77 7 (1 1th C ir. 2 01 0) (pe r cu ria m) (“ [A]lth ou gh m ere p res en ce i s i ns uf fic ie ntto supp ort a c on vi ct io n fo r co ns pi racy, the jury is pe rm it te d t o c on si de r pr es en ce as a 5 Case: 10-12480 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 5 of 6pr ob at iv e fac to r in de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e d efen da ntkn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y

pa rti ci pa te d i n acri m in al sch em e.”). Sab in a to ldanIm mig rat io n a ndCu st om s Enfo rcem en t ag en t tha t h e was li vi ng at t he Ch ut ne y Driv e p ro pe rty at th e ti m e h e was arre st ed . Sab in a o wne d t he Ji b R oa d p ro pe rty, where o ffi cers fou ndan ot he r m ari juan a-g ro win g o pe rat io n, an d h e le as edth atpro pe rty to Hu ezo . The go ve rn m en t al so in tro du cedev id en ce tha t the th ree p ro pe rti es at wh ic h of fic ers fou ndm ari

juan a-g ro win g o pe rat io ns were p artof t he m ari juan a-g ro win g co ns pi racy. At ea ch pro pe rty, the re were two 5-t on airco nd it io ne rs ; anin vo ic e sh owe d t ha t s om eo ne inMi am i, Fl or id a, ha d b ou gh t thr ee o f th os e ai r co nd it io ne rs on a si ng le ord er fo rm ; an d a t ea ch of t he pro pe rti es , off ic ers fou ndon e o f th e th ree 5 -to n a ir c on di ti on ers th atwere l is te d o n t ha t o rd er fo rm . In l ig htof a ll th at ev id en ce, a re as on ab le jury co ul d h av e fo un d t ha t the go ve rn m en t p ro ve d b ey on d a rea so nabl e d oubtth atNori eg a was gu il ty of co ns pi racy to p os se ss m ari juan a with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te . AFFIRMED.

6 Case: 10-12480 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 6 of 6