NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0081n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 2, 2009 No. 06-5555 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. HENRY JORDAN, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COUR T FO R T HE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TENNESSEE

B e fo re : MO OR E, CL AYand KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e . D e fe nd ant H e nr y Jord an a pp e a ls f ro m hi s guil ty

ple a to firea rms and contr olled-substance offe nses. He argues that his plea lac ked a f actua l basis as to one count, that his motion t o suppress was err oneously denied, and that he wa s improperly desig nated

an A rm e d Ca

re e r C ri min a l. We a ff

ir m. I. On J anuar y 15, 2004, Rhea C o u n t y , T en n es s ee , S h er i ff ’s d et ec t i v es ex ec u t eda s ea rc h war rant

a t Jor da n’ s r e sid e nc e . I ns ide , the y re c ov e re d e ig ht f ir e arm s, se ve n o f whic h w e re in c los e pr oximi ty to other i tems seized, including 7.7 pounds of m arijuana , two sets of scales, plastic bag g ies, various container s of ammunition, brass knuckles, a nd $341.00 in cash.No. 06-5555

USA v. J ordan

-2- J ordan w as later

indicted on cha

rg es of be ing a

felon in possession of a firea rm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1) (Count 1), and possession w ith intent to distribute marijuana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 8 4 1(a) (1) ( Count 2). J ordan the rea fter move d to suppress the evide nce r ecove red fr om h is r e sid e nc e , a

rguin g tha t th e se arc h warr ant’ s supp or tin g a ff ida vit fa ile d to e sta

bli shpr ob a

ble

c a us e . Th e ma g istra

te jud g e fo un d that a

tot a lity -o f- the -c ir c ums tanc e s ana ly sis su pp or te d p ro ba ble

c a us e . Jor da

n d id n ot o bje c t to thi s f

ind ing ; and

on Janu ary 25 , 2 00 6, the dis tr ic t court a do pte d it

and de nie d Jor da

n’ s mo tio n to su

pp re ss. On Marc h 8, 2005, a super seding indictment char g ed Jo rd an wi t h an additional count of po ssessio n o f a

fi re arm in f ur the ra nc e of a dr ugtr a ff ic kin g of fe ns e , in vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 924(c) (1)( A)(i) (Count 3). J ordan ple d g uilty to all three counts on October 6, 2005. He objec ted

on ly to o ne c la

us e in t he g ov e rn me nt’ s F a c tua l B a sis do c ume nt: “ De fe nd ant p os se sse d h is f ir e arm s to protect himself an d h is m ar iju an a b us ine ss .” (Emphasis added.) The district court ac cepte d J ordan’ s plea. J ordan’ s Presentenc e I nvestig ation Report rec ommended that he be desig nated an Ar m ed Caree r Criminal, trigg ering a 15-year mandatory

minimum sentenc e as to Count 1. The dist rict cour t de te rm ine d Jor da

n’ s a dv iso ry Gu ide lin e s rang e to b e 26 2- 32 7 mo nth s. I t th e n s e nte nc e d Jor da n to 240 months, using the mandatory minimum sentenc es as to Counts 1 and 3. The c ourt also imposed a 60-month sentenc e as to Count 2, to be serve d concur rently with Count 1’s term. This appea l followed. II.No. 06-5555

USA v. J ordan

-3- Jord an p re sen ts thre e argume nts on a pp e a l. F ir st, he se e ks to v a c a te his c on vic tio n a s to Count 3 be c a

us e he no w s ay s th a t th e g ov e rnme nt p re se nte d in su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to su pp ort it. Every g uilty plea must have a fa ctual basis. F ed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)( 3). J ordan c ontends there was not one for his plea

that he possessed f

irea rms “in furthe ranc e of” his marijuana business. A fire arm so possessed is “ strateg ically located so that it is quickly and ea sily

available for use.” United States v. Mac key , 265 F.3d 457, 462 ( 6th Cir. 2001). “[T] he ty pe of w ea p o n , the leg ality of its possession [and] the t y pe of dr ug activity

conducte d” ar e also re levant to whethe r the firea rms wer e possessed in f

urthera nce of the drugtraff

icking crime. Id

. These f actor s support a findingthat J ord a n p o s s e s sed fire arms in furthe ranc e of his mar ijuana bu sin e ss. De te c tiv e s re c ov e re d e ig ht fi re arm s fr om Jord an’ s re sid e nc e , se ve n of wh ic h we re in c los e proxi mity to a distribution-level quantity of marijuana , other drug pa raphe rnalia, multiple containe rs of ammunition, and brass knuc kles. Among the fire arms we re two pistols, four rif les, one longrifle, and one shotgun. Marijuana residue was l ocate d near the fire arms. And de tectives found ma rijuana in a mmunit ion

c a se s e lse wh e re on

Jord an’ s p ro pe rt

y . Jor da n a dmi tte d p os se ssi ngthe fi re arm s, drug s, and drugpara

pherna lia, and that he “was e ng ag ed in the business of se lling mar ijuana.” T hat collectively

is enoug h to support the plea. Second, Jordan argues that the district cour t errone ously

denied his motion to suppress the items seized from his residenc e. A defenda nt who pleads g

uilty , howeve r, “ma

y not appea l an

a dv e rs e ru lin g on a pr e -p le a mot ion to sup pr e ss ev ide nc e un le ss he ha s pre se rv e d the ri g ht t o d o s o by enter ing a conditi onal pl ea of g uilty in compliance with Rule 11(a) (2).” Un ite d S tates v . B e ll , 350 F.3d 534, 535 ( 6th Cir. 2003). See also Tollett v. Hende rson , 4 11 U. S. 2 58 , 2 67 (1 97 3) (d e fe nd antsNo. 06-5555

USA v. J ordan

-4- who plead guilty

“may not therea fter r aise indepe ndent claims re lat i n g t o t he depr ivation of constitutional rights that occ urre d prior to the entr y of the guil ty

plea” ). Jordan entere d an unconditional plea, a

nd thus cannot appe al the ea rlier de nial of his suppression motion. Finally , J ordan c halleng es his desig nation as an A rmed Car eer Criminal, but p re s ents no argument in support of his positi on. We theref ore de em this argument waived. See United States v. Elder , 9 0 F .3 d 1 11 0, 11 18 (6 th C ir . 1 99 6) (“ it i s a se ttl e d ap pe llate ru le that issu e s adv e rt e d to in a per functory

manner , u n accompanied by some eff ort at deve loped ar g umentation, are deeme d waived” ) (inter

nal quotation marks omitted). The judg ment of the district cour t is affirmed.