# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 23 08

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro be rt E. Gree n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 6, 2 01 2

Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 10 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d HIC KEY, Dis tri ct 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Su sa n O. Hick ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

F ol lo win g a be nc h tri al

, Ro be rt Green was co nv ic te d of on e co un t of b a n k

ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 21 13 (a). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 96 2

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. On app eal

, Green ch al le ng es th e di st ric t cou rt’s d en ia l o f a

m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce an d t he sen te nc e im po se d. We affi rm

.

I.

On Mar ch 28

, 20 09

, Offi cers Ri ck y Ro pk a an d Kev in Gro wne y of th e Kan sa s

Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri, Po li c e D e p a r t m en t were on pa tro l. It was a cl ou dy da y wit h

oc cas io na l m od erat e to he av y rai n. At ap pr ox im at el y 9: 00 a.m ., Gro wne y an d Ro pk a

he ard a r a d i o cal l rep or ti ng a ro bb ery at th e Co m m erce Ban k at 63 rd St reet an d

Bro ok si de Pl aza in Kan sa s Ci ty. The su sp ect was d e s c r i b e d a s a 30 to 40 -y ear- ol d

b la ck m al e wit h faci al ha ir an d a m ed iu m bu il d, weari ng a bl ack rai nc o a t

, b l a c k

ba se ba ll cap , bl ue jean s, an d whi te Nik e te nn is sh oe s. Gro wne y , Ro p k a , an d ot he r

of fic ers set up a pe rimeter i n t he area su rro un di ng th e b an k.

Gro wne y no ti ced a bl ack m al e walk in g ne ar 6 5t h an d W y an do tt e St reet s,

ap pr ox im at el y two bl oc ks fro m Co m m erce Ban k. The m an , la te r id en ti fie d as Green

, ha d a m ed iu m bu il d, was ap pr ox ima t e l y 5'1 0" to 5'1 1" ta ll

, ha d a go at ee, an d wor e

whi te Nik e te nn is sh oe s. Gro wne y as ke d Green to st op , an d he co m pl ie d. Green to ld

Gro wne y th at he was a pe rs on al tra in er an d was in t h e area lo ok in g fo r a tra il on

whi ch to run

.

Gro wne y ran a co m

pu te r ch eck an d di sc ov ered two ou ts ta nd in g warra nt s fo r

Green ’s arre st

. Gro wne y arre st ed Green an d fo un d a la rg e am ou nt of cas h in hi s fro nt

The Hon or ab le Greg Kay s, Uni te d St at es D i s tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 2

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-pa nt s po ck et

. W hi le can va ss in g th e area , ot he r of fic ers fo un d a b l a c k rai n jack et

, bl ack swea ts hi rt, bl ack ha t, and a bo x cut te r in a tra sh can at a ne arb y ho m e. Green

la te r m ad e in cu lp at or y st at em en ts du rin g an in te rv ie w wit h law enfo rcem en t. Afte r

th e in te rv ie w, offi cers se iz ed a St y ro fo am cu p th at Green ha d us ed in th e in te rv ie w

ro om an d s ub m it te d i t fo r DNA tes ti ng

.

A gr an d jury ch arg ed Green wit h ba nk ro bb ery. He m ov ed to su pp r es s hi s

st at em en ts to la w en fo rcem en t an d se ve ral pi eces of ph y si cal ev id en ce. Green arg ue d

th at Gro wne y ’s in v e s ti ga to ry st op vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, be cau se th e

of fic er ha d no th in g m or e th an an “ in ch oa te an d un pa rti cu la riz ed su sp ic io n or hu nc h”

of cri m in al act iv it y

. Afte r a he ari ng , a m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d de ni al of th e 3

m ot io n. Ci ti ng th e fact s th at G r e e n was walk in g in th e area of th e rece nt ba nk

ro bb ery an d m at ch ed m an y as pe ct s of th e su sp ect ’s de sc rip ti on , th e m ag is tra te jud ge

co nc lu de d t ha t Gro wne y

was ju st ifi ed in co nd uc ti ng an in ve st ig at iv e d et en ti on

. 4

Afte r is su in g th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on , bu t be fo re th e de ad li ne fo r fil in g

ob jecti on s ha d ex pi red

, th e m ag is tra te jud ge gr an te d Green ’s req ue st to pr oc eed pr o

se , wit h h is fo rm er cou ns el co nt in ui ng on ly as st an d- by cou ns el . Green di d n ot fil e

The Hon or ab le Jo hn T. Mau gh m er, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 3

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

The m ag is tra te jud ge al so fo un d th at Gro wne y no ti ced th a t Green “ was no t 4

weari ng a co at

, bu t [h i s ] cl ot he s ap pe ared to be fai rly dr y ,” an d th e jud ge rel ie d on th is fact in co nc lu di ng th at th e st o p was su pp or te d by re as on ab le su sp ic io n. Green

arg ue s on ap pe al

, ho wev er, th at Gro wne y di d no t ob se rv e Green ’s dr y cl ot hi ng un ti l

aft er in it ia ti ng th e de te nt io n. Green di d no t fil e ob jecti on s to th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s

fact ua l fin di ng s, so we rev ie w th is di sp ut ed fin di ng fo r pl ai n erro r. Se e Uni te d St at es

v. Lo ok in g , 15 6 F.3 d 80 3, 80 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). W e co nc lu d e t ha t Gro wne y ha d

reas on ab le su sp ic io n to st op Green ev en wit ho ut an ob se rv at io n of dr y cl ot he s, so an y

erro r on th is po in t was no t p reju di ci al

.

-3

-ob

jecti on s to th e m ag is tra te ’s reco m m en da ti on . The d is tri ct co ur t t he n a do pt ed th e

reco m m en da ti on an d d en ie d t he m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

Afte r a two -d ay be nc h tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d Green gu il ty of ba nk

ro bb ery. At se nt e n c i n g , th e co ur t va rie d up ward fro m th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e

se nt en ci ng ran ge of 46 to 57 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d se nt en ced Green to a 96

-

m on th ter m

.

II.

On ap pe al

, Green re as se rts hi s cl ai m th at Gro wne y la ck ed reas on ab le su sp ic io n

to m ak e an in ve st ig at iv e st op

. He al so co nt en ds fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al th at ev en

if th e st op were jus ti fie d, Gro wne y ex ceed ed th e pe rm is si bl e sc op e of an in ve st ig at iv e

de te nt io n un de r Ter ry v. Ohi o , 39 2 U.S. 1 (1 96 8)

, a n d su bjec te d hi m to a de fa ct o

arre st wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se

. As a res ul t, Green arg ue s, th e cu rren cy se iz ed fro m hi s

po ck et

, hi s st at em en ts to la w en fo rcem en t, an d th e “ ge ne ti c pr of il e” de ve lo pe d fro m

th e St y ro fo am

cu p m us t b e su pp res se d.

A.

A la w en fo rcem en t of

fic er m ay de ta in a pe rs on fo r in ve st ig at io n wit ho ut

pr ob ab le cau se to arr e s t if th e of fic er “ ha s a reas on ab le su sp ic io n su pp or te d by

art ic ul ab le fact s th at cri m in al act iv it y ‘m ay be afo ot .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. So ko lo w , 49 0

U.S. 1, 7 (1 98 9) (q uo ti ng Ter ry , 39 2 U.S. at 30 ). “ W he th er th e pa rti cu la r fact s kn own

to th e of fic er am ou nt to an ob

jecti ve an d p a r t i c u l ari zed ba si s fo r a reas on ab le

su sp ic io n of cri m in al act iv it y is de t e r mi n ed in li gh t of th e to ta li ty of th e

ci rcu ms t a n c e s

. ” Uni te d St at es v. Gar ci a , 23 F.3 d 13 31

, 13 34 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). W e

rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at i o n th at reas on ab le su sp ic io n ex is te d.

Orn el as v. Uni te d S ta te s , 51 7 U.S. 6 90 , 69 9 (1 99 6)

.

-4

-The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y he ld th at Gro wne y ha d r e a s o na bl e, art ic ul ab le

su sp ic io n th at was su ff

ic ie nt to st op Green

. An in ve st ig at iv e st op “ typic al ly is

jus ti fie d whe n a su sp ect m at ch es th e de sc rip ti on of a pe rs on in vo lv ed in a di st ur ba nc e

n e a r i n t i me an d lo cat io n to th e st op .” Uni te d St at es v. Hor to n , 61 1 F.3 d 93 6, 9 4 0
(8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Afte r rece iv in g a de sc rip ti on of th e su sp ect ed ba nk ro bb er, Gro wne y

ob se rv ed a bl ack m al e wit h a m ed iu m bu il d an d faci al ha ir weari ng whi te Nik e te nn is

sh oe s. Each of th es e feat ur es m at ch ed th e de sc rip ti on gi ve n to Gro wne y

. Gro wne y

al so ob se rv ed Green walk in g ap pr ox im at el y two bl oc ks away fro m th e ba nk th at ha d

jus t b e e n r o b be d. Giv en Green ’s si m il ari ti es to th e de sc rip ti on of th e su sp ect ed

ro bb er an d hi s pr ox im it y in bo th ti m e an d pl ace to th e cri m e, Gro wne y ha d reas on ab le

su sp ic io n t ha t Gre en co m m it te d a cri m e.

B.

Green ne xt arg ue s th at Gro wne y e x c e e d e d th e pe rm is si bl e sc op e of a Ter ry

st op an d su bjec te d hi m to a de fa ct o arre st wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se

. He co nt en ds th at

Gro wne y effe ct ed a de fa ct o arre st be cau se th e of fic er was dr iv in g a “ pa tro l wag on ”

us ed to tra ns po rt arre st ees fo r bo o k i n g , a n d he in st ru ct ed Green to “ st op an d walk

to ward m e.” Green als o c om pl ai ns th at whe n Grown ey pl aced hi s han d on Green ’s

ch es t to feel hi s he art be at

, pr es um ab ly to se e if he ha d be en ru nn in g in th e im m ed ia te

aft erm at h of th e ba nk ro bb ery, th e of fic er co nd uc te d a se arch fo r ev id en ce th at wen t

be y on d th e sc op e of a pe rm is si bl e Ter ry st op

. The se co nt en ti on s were no t rais ed in

a pr et ria l m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce, an d th ey are th eref or e waiv ed

. Se e Fed

. R.

Cri m . P. 12 (e).

Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(3 ) sp e c i f i e s t ha t “ a m ot io n to

su pp r e s s e vi de nc e” m

us t be m ad e be fo re tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t m ay es ta bl is h a

de ad li ne fo r pr et ria l m ot io ns , Fed

. R

. C r i m. P. 12 (c), an d a “ pa rty wa iv es an y Ru le

12 (b )(3 ) de fen se , ob

jecti on , or req ue st no t rai se d” by th e co ur t ’s pr et ria l de ad li ne

. Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 12 (e) (em ph as is ad de d)

. The co ur t m ay , ho wev er, gr an t rel ie f fro m

-5

-t h e w a i ve r fo r “ go od cau se .” Id

. Bec au se “ waiv ed cl ai m s are un rev ie wab le on

ap pe al ,” Uni te d St at es v. Boo ker

, 57 6 F.3 d 50 6, 51 1 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 9)

, th e waiv er

pr ov is io n o f Ru le 12 pre cl ud es ap pe ll at e rev ie w of a rg um en ts to su pp res s ev id en ce

th at are no t rais ed in a pr et ria l m ot io n to su pp res s. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Hen de rs on , 61 3 F.3 d 11 77

, 11 82 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); Uni te d St at es v. Sp ot te d Elk

, 54 8 F.3 d 64 1, 65 6
(8 th Ci r. 20 08 ); Uni te d St at es v. New

, 49 1 F.3 d 36 9, 37 4 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Buc ha na n , 98 5 F.2 d 13 72

, 13 80 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ); Uni te d St at es v. Neu man n , 88 7 F.2 d 88 0, 88 5- 86 (8 th C i r

. 1 9 8 9 ) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Cr oo ker

, No. 10

-
23 72

, 20 12 W L 30 64 84 6, at *7 (1 st Ci r. Ju ly 27

, 20 12 ); Uni te d St at es v. Bur ke

, 63 3

F.3 d 98 4, 98 8- 89 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v. Ros e , 53 8 F.3 d 17 5, 18 2 (3 d Ci r.

20 08 ); Uni te d St at es v. Y

ou se f

, 32 7 F.3 d 56

, 12 4- 25 (2 d Ci r. 20 03 ); Uni te d St at es v.

Mur il lo

, 28 8 F.3 d 11 26

, 11 35 (9 th Ci r. 20 02 ); Uni te d St at es v. Ch av ez -Val en ci a , 11 6

F.3 d 1 27 , 13 4 (5 th Cir . 19 97 ). 5

To be su re, th ere is a g e n e r a l r u l e th at a “ pl ai n erro r th at affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l

rig ht s m ay be co ns id e r e d e v e n t ho ug h it was no t br ou gh t to th e co ur t’s at te nt io n,”

F e d. R. Cri m

. P. 52 (b ), an d a “ m ere fo rfei tu re” typic al ly “ do es no t ex ti ng ui s h a n

As of Ju ly 20 11

, a pa ne l of th is co ur t sa id th at we h a d “‘n ot y et de ci de d 5

whe th er th e fai lu re to rai se a su pp res si on m at te r in a ti m el y pr et ria l m ot io n pr ecl ud es pl ai n erro r rev ie w.’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Gar ci a , 64 6 F.3 d 10 61

, 10 68 n.7 (8 t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ja mes , 53 4 F.3 d 86 8, 87 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). As no te d

in te xt , h owe ve r, se ve ral de ci si on s of th is co ur t da ti ng at le as t to Neu man n in 19 89

ha ve he ld th at an ob

jecti on th at ev id en ce sh ou ld be su pp res se d is waiv ed if no t rai se d

i n a pr et ria l m ot io n. Oth er de ci si on s fro m th is ci rcu it ha ve rev ie wed su p p r e s s i o n is su es fo r pl ai n e r r o r , se e Uni te d St at es v. Qua m , 36 7 F.3 d 10 06

, 10 08 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ); Uni te d St at es v. W he at

, 27 8 F.3 d 72 2, 73 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ); Uni te d St at es v. Cl ay to n , 2 10 F.3 d 84 1, 84 3 (8 th Cir . 20 00 ); Uni te d St at es v. W as hi ng to n , 1 09 F.3 d

45 9, 46 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ), bu t we ha ve fo un d no de ci si on th at g r a n t e d r e li ef on th at
ba si s. Non e of th e de ci si on s th at ap pl ie d pl ai n erro r rev ie w co ns id ered th e effe ct of

th e Ru le 12 waiv er pr ov is io n, an d a pr io r pa ne l’s im pl ic it res ol ut io n of an is su e th at

was no t rai se d or di sc us se d is no t bi nd in g pr eced en t. St re u v. Dor mir e , 55 7 F.3 d 96 0,

96 4 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

-6

-‘e rro r’ un de r Ru le 52 (b ).” Uni te d St at es v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 3 (1 99 3)

. B u t

Ru le 12 “ si ng le s ou t m ot io ns to su pp res s.” Ros e , 53 8 F.3 d at 18 3. Ru le 12 m an da te s

th at su ch m ot io ns m

us t be br ou gh t be fo re tri al

, an d it pr ov id es th at a pa rty “ waiv es ”

an y Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) “ de fen se , o bjec ti on , o r req ue st ” no t rai se d by t he co ur t’s pr et ria l

de a d l in e. Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 12 (e). “ W he n ge ne ral an d sp eci fic st at ut or y pr ov is io ns

ap pa ren tl y co nt rad ic t, it is well -es ta bl is he d th at th e two m ay ex is t to ge th er, th e

sp eci fic pr ov is io n qu al ifyin g or li m it in g th e ge ne ral .” Uni te d St at es v. Gul li cks on , 98 1 F .2d 34 4, 34 9 (8t h Cir. 19 92 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. W e do no t app ly “ a

ge ne ral pr ov is io n whe n do in g so wou ld un de rm in e li m it at io ns c r e a t e d by a m or e

sp eci fic pr ov is io n.” Var it y Co rp

. v. How e , 51 6 U.S. 48 9, 51 1 (1 99 6)

. If we were to

ap pl y th e fo rfei tu re an al y si s of Ru le 52 (b ) an d Ola no in th e face of Ru le 12 ’s sp eci fic

waiv er pr ov is io n, th en a Ru le 12 waiv er “ wou ld ha ve no co ns eq ue nc e ot he r th an th at
[th e cl ai m ] wou ld be rev ie wed fo r pl ai n erro r”— th e sa m e res ul t as if th ere were no

Ru le 12 (e). Uni te d S ta te s v. Weat he rs , 18 6 F .3d 94 8, 9 55 (D.C. Cir . 19 99 ).

The Su pr em e Co ur t in Dav is v. Uni te d St at es , 41 1 U.S. 23 3 (1 97 3)

, ex pl ai ne d

th at “ waiv er” in Ru le 12 pr ecl ud es fu rth er jud ic ia l rev ie w. The de fen da nt th ere

br ou gh t a pr oc eed in g un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, al le gi ng th a t t h ere ha d be en

un co ns ti tu ti on a l d i s c riminat io n in th e se le ct io n of a gr an d jury. Id

. at 23 4- 35

. Alt ho ug h he ha d no t rai se d th is cl ai m at tri al

, th e de fen da nt arg ue d th at hi s co ll at eral

at ta ck was no t ba rred un le ss he “ de li be rat el y bypas se d” or “ un de rs ta n d i n g l y an d

kn owi ng ly” waiv ed th e cl ai m

. Id

. at 23 6. The Co ur t, inv ok in g th e “ ex pr es s waiv er

pr ov is io n” of Ru le 12

, di sa gr eed

. Id

. at 23 9. Dav is he ld th at “ a cl ai m on ce waiv ed 6

pu rs ua nt to th at Ru le m ay no t la te r be res ur rect ed

, ei th er in th e cri m in al pr oc eed in gs

or in fed eral ha be as , in th e ab s e n c e o f th e sh owi ng of ‘caus e’ whi ch th at Ru le

req ui res .” Id

. at 24 2. The Co ur t exp la in ed th at ev en th ou gh th e de fen da nt “ al le ge d

W he n Dav is was de ci de d, th e waiv er pr ov is io n ap pe ared in Ru le 12 (b )(2 ) an d 6

pr ov id ed th at th e fai lu re to pr es en t cert ai n de fen se s or ob jecti on s by pr et ria l m ot io n

“ co ns ti tu te s a waiv er th ereo f, bu t th e co ur t fo r cau se sh own m ay gr an t rel ie f fro m th e waiv er.” Dav is , 41 1 U.S. at 23 6.

-7

-th e de pr iv at io n of a su bs ta nt ia l co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht ,” id

. at 24 3, Ru le 12 “ ap pl ie s to

bo th pr oc ed ur al an d c on st it ut io na l d efec ts in th e in st it ut io n of pro se cu ti on s.” Id

. at

23 6. Thu s, as th e D.C. Ci rcu it su m m ar iz ed

, “ [a]lt ho ug h Ola no in di cat es th at un ti m el y

ob jecti on s are ge ne ral ly reg ard ed as fo rfei tu res su bjec t to Ru le 52 (b ), Dav is di ct at es

th at un ti m el y ob

jecti on s th at co m e wit hi n th e am bi t of [Ru le 12 ] m

us t be co ns id ered

waiv ers an d m ay

no t b e rev iv ed on ap pe al .” W ea th er s , 18 6 F .3d at 9 57

.

The hi st or y of Ru le 12 al so “ in di cat es th at it s te xt m ean s wha t it sa y s.” Ros e , 53 8 F.3 d at 18 3. The ru le s were am en de d in 19 74 “ to req ui re— wit h an ex pl ic it th reat

of waiv er— th at m ot io ns to su pp res s be rai se d pr io r to tri al i n a c c o r da nc e wit h th e

di st ric t co ur t’s de si red ti m et ab le .” Id

. W e l l aft er Ola no , th e waiv er pr ov is io n was

m ov ed to su bs ect io n (e) of Ru le 12

, an d th e te xt was rev is ed

, bu t th e waiv er pr ov is io n

rem ai ne d in ta ct

. Se e Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 12 ad vi so ry co m m it te e’s n o t e on 20 02

am en dm en ts

. “ Had th e dr aft ers th ou gh t th at te rm ou td at ed in li gh t of Ola no or ot he r

pr eced en t, th ey co ul d ha ve ch an ge d th e te rm to ‘forfe it ur e,’ bu t th ey di d no t.” Ros e , 53 8 F .3d at 1 83

.

In ou r cas e, Green di d fil e a m ot io n to su pp res s, bu t th e m ere fil in g of a m ot io n

is no t su ffi ci en t to av oi d waiv er of sp eci fic arg um en ts th at are ad va nc ed fo r th e fir st

ti m e on ap pe al

. The Ru le 12 “ waiv er pr ov is io n ‘ap p l i e s n o t on ly to th e fai lu re to

m ak e a pr et ria l m ot io n, bu t al so to th e fai lu re to in cl ud e a pa rti cu la r arg um en t in th e

m ot io n.’” Sp ot te d Elk

, 54 8 F.3 d at 65 6 ( q u o t in g Uni te d St at es v. Bar aj as -Ch av ez , 35 8 F.3 d 12 63

, 12 66 -6 7 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 04 )); ac co rd Bur ke

, 63 3 F.3 d at 99 1; Ros e , 53 8

F.3 d at 18 2. The ru le de cl ares th at a pa rty waiv es an y Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) “ ob jecti on ” no t

rai se d by th e co ur t’s pr et ria l de ad li ne

. Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 12 (e). Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) so ug ht

to m ak e “ cl ear th at ob

jecti on s to ev id en ce on th e gr ou nd th at it was il le ga ll y ob ta in ed

m us t be rai se d pr io r to tri al .” Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 12 ad vi so ry co m m it te e’s no te on 19 74

am en dm en t. Alt ho ug h Green fil ed a pr et ria l m ot io n to su pp res s, he di d no t ur ge th at

Gro wne y m ad e a de fa ct o arre st or th at th e of fic er co nd uc te d an il le ga l se arch whe n

he to uc he d Green ’s ch es t. Thu s, th e go ve rn m en t ha d no reas on to jus ti fy th e of fic er’s

-8

-act io ns th at Green no w ch al le ng es on ap pe al

, an d t he di st ric t cou rt had no oc cas io n

to ad dr es s t he is su es

.

Abs en t a sh owi ng of go o d cau se , t he arg um en ts th at Green se ek s to rai se fo r

th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al are waiv ed un de r Ru le 12 ( e ). W e di sc ern no “ go od cau se ”

th at warra nt s rel ie f fro m th e waiv er in th is cas e. The ev id en ce reg ard in g Gro wne y ’s

to uc hi ng of Gree n’s ch es t was ad du ced at th e su pp res si on he ari ng

. W hi le be la te d

di sc ov ery of di sp ut ed ev id en ce m ig ht ex pl ai n a def en da nt ’s fai lu re t o ra is e an is su e

in hi s in it i a l mo t io n to su pp res s, it can no t es ta bl is h “ go od cau se ” fo r hi s fai lu re to

rai se it aft er th e he ari ng bu t be fo re tri al

. Se e Ros e , 53 8 F.3 d at 18 4- 85

. Nor do es th e

fact th at Green was p ro ceed in g pr o se fo r a po rti on of th e pr et ria l peri od ex cu se hi s

no nc om pl ia nc e wit h Ru le 12

. The rig ht of se lf- rep res en ta ti on is no t “ a li cen se no t to

co m pl y wit h rel ev an t ru le s of pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e la w,” Far et ta v. Ca li fo rn ia

, 42 2 U.S

. 8 0 6

, 8 3 4 n.4 6 (1 97 5) , a nd Green ’s pr o se st at us al on e do es no t co ns ti tu te

go od cau se

. Se e Ros e , 53 8 F.3d at 18 4- 85

. Fo r th es e reas on s, we ho ld th at Green ’s

rem ai ni ng arg um en ts for su pp res si on of e vi de nc e are waiv ed

.

III.

Green ne xt ch al le ng es hi s 96 -m on t h s e nt en ce on pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e

gr ou nd s. In co ns id eri ng as se rti on s of pr oc ed ur al erro r, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ap pl ic at io n of th e gu id el in es de no vo an d it s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d

St at es v. Paz

, 62 2 F.3 d 89 0, 89 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). W e re v i e w th e su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

. Gal l

v. Uni te d S ta te s , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1 (2 00 7)

.

G r e e n as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r whe n i t

de pa rte d up ward un de r USSG § 4A1 .3(a )(1 ), whi ch pe rm it s an up ward de pa rtu re if

“ th e de fen da nt ’s c r im in al hi st or y cat eg or y su bs ta nt ia ll y un de r-re pr es en ts th e

se rio us ne ss of th e de fen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st or y or th e l i k e l i h oo d th at th e de fen da nt

-9

-wil l co m

m it ot he r cri m es .” Green co nt en ds th a t t h e co ur t erro ne ou sl y fai le d to

co ns id er or ex pl ai n why i nt erm ed ia ry cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or ie s fai le d t o m eet th e

pu rp os es of § 4A1 .3. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Azu re , 53 6 F.3 d 92 2, 93 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ).

Th e pr em is e of th is co nt en ti on is fla wed

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t de pa rt up w a r d

un de r § 4A1 .3. Rat he r, it co ns id ered th e fact or s se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) an d

fo un d th at “ a va ria nc e is ap pr op ria te .” “ [T]he st an da rd s jus ti fy in g de pa rtu res un de r

th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s are na rro wer th an th e fact or s en um erat ed in § 35 53 (a),” an d

a va ria nc e ba se d on th e st at ut or y fact or s m ay be ap pr op ria te ev en whe re a de pa rtu re

wou ld be un

jus ti fie d. Uni te d St at es v. So li s- Bermu de z , 50 1 F .3d 88 2, 8 86 (8t h Cir.

20 07 ). Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t de pa rt pu rs ua nt to § 4A1 .3, th ere is no m eri t

to Green ’s cla im

of p ro ced ur al erro r.

Green al so ch al le ng es th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s se nt en ce, arg ui ng

th at th e di st ric t co ur t “ fo cu se d al m os t en ti rel y ” on a fif te en -y ear se nt en ce Green

se rv ed on a pr io r st at e ro bb ery co nv ic ti on

. The reco rd do es no t su pp or t th is as se rti on

. In co ns id eri ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve se ve ra l r e a s o n s fo r

im po si ng a se nt en ce of 96 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. As pa rt of it s an al y si s, th e di st ric t

co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered Green ’s p rio r ro bb ery co nv ic ti on an d pr is on di sc ip li na ry

reco rd , o bs erv in g th at Green “ di dn ’t g et alo ng well in pr is on .” Green accu m ul at ed

nu m ero us pr is on vi ol at io n rep or ts fo r as sa ul t, th reat s, an d fig ht in g, an d he was pl aced

in di sc ip li na ry se gr eg at io n si xt een ti m es

. The di st ric t co ur t un de rs ta nd ab ly fo un d it

“ co nc ern in g” th at Green wen t “ to pr is on f o r 15 y ears fo r ro bb ery an d ge ts ou t an d

ro bs a ba nk .” The co ur t al so co ns id ered th e se rio us ne ss of Green ’s o f f e n s e , w h ic h

crea te d “ a da ng er o u s c i rcu m st an ce to ev erybod y ,” an d th e co ur t weig he d Green ’s

“ sp or ad ic ” wor k hi s t o r y. Fi na ll y , t he co ur t co ns id ered th e ne ed to pr om ot e res pe ct

fo r th e la w an d de te r cri m in al co nd uc t, ex pl ai ni ng , “ whe n y ou ge t ou t of pr is on aft er

a ro bb ery, an d y ou go ou t an d ro b a ba nk a few y ears aft er th at

, th ere’s a pu ni sh m en t

rel at ed to th is .” Giv i n g “due de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on th at th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, on a who le

, jus ti fy th e ex te nt of th e va ria nc e,” Gal l

, 55 2 U.S. at 51

,

we co nc lu de th at Green ’s sen te nc e is no t u nr eas on ab le

.

-1 0-* * *

The jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t is affi rm ed

. Green ’s m ot io n fo r le av e to fil e

a pr o se rep ly br ie f is de ni ed

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti n , 59 F.3 d 76 7, 76 8 n.2 (8 th

Ci r. 19 95 ).

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-