FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 30, 2006 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. 05- 11231 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -801 23 -C R -J IC 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 C R A I G T U S H , 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 30, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A ppe l l a ntC r a i g T us h appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s f orpos s e s s i on w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te : a t le a s t 5 0 g r a m s o f d - m e th a m p h e ta m in e h y d r o c h lo r id e , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) ; 2, 117 gr a m s of hy dr oc odone , i n vi ol a t i on of § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; 3 0 1 .0 5 g r a m s o f 3 ,4 m e th y le n e d io x y a m p h e ta m in e ( “e c s ta c y ” ) , in vi ol at i on of § 8 41 (a )( 1); 4. 59 4 g ra m s of e cs t ac y, i n v i ol at i on of § 8 41 (a )( 1); at l e a s t250 gr a m s of

m a r i j ua na , i n vi ol a t i on of

§ 841( a ) ( 1) ; 227. 6 gr a m s of ke t a m i ne h yd ro ch l o ri d e (“ k et am i n e”), i n v i o l at i o n o f § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ); an d 1 9 0 d i azep am t ab l et s, in v io la tio n o f

§ 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) . O n ap p e a l, T u s h a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in a l l ow i ng the a dm i s s i on of hi s s t a t e m e nt s m a de t o pol i c e s hor t l y a f t e rhi s a rr e s ta nd on the da y f

ol l ow i ng hi s a rr e s tbe c a us e the of f i c e r s di d nothonorthe e xe r c i s e of hi s r i ghtt o r e m a i n s i l e nt . T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponds tha t , by f a i l i ng t o f

i l e am ot i on to s u p p r e s s , T u s h h a s w a iv e d a n y c h a lle n g e to th e a d m is s io n o f th is te s tim o n y . T u s h a ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g h is m o t i o n fo r a m i stri al b ecau se th e g o v ern m en terred i n co m m en t i n g o n th e ex erci se of hi s r i gh tt o rem ai n si l ent . N ext , T ush ass ert s that , despi t e the i nv ocat i on of a pot e nt i a l w i tne s s ’ s F i f

th A m e ndm e ntpr i vi l e ge a ga i ns ts e l f - i nc r i m i na t i on, the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n pr e ve nt i ng hi m f r om c a l l i ng thi s w i tne s s a ttr i a l be c a us e s he m ayhave changed h erm i nd on the w i tness st and. T ush al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ct c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in a llo w in g te s tim o n y r e g a r d in g th e f ir e a rm s f o u n d in3

h i s ap a r tme n tb e c a u s e h e w a s n o tc h a r g e dw i th a n y f i r e a rms o f

f e n s e , th e f

i r e a rms w e r e n o t lo c a te d n e a ra n y d ru g s , a n d p o s s e s s io n o f f ir e a rm s is le g a l in F lo r id a . F i nal l y, T ush con t ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n app l yi ng a tw o-l evel e n h a n c e m e n tf

o rp o s s e s s i n g ad a n g e r o u s we ap o n , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1) (2003 ). A dm is s io n o

f P o s t- A r r e s t S ta te m e n ts A mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s mu s tb e ma d e b e f o r e tr i a l . Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 12( b) ( 3) ( C ) . F a i l ur e t o br i ng am ot i on t o s uppr e s s be f or e tr i a l , i n the abs e nc e of g o o d c a u s e s h o w n , c o n s titu te s w a iv e r . F e d . R . C r im . P . 1 2 ( e ) ; se e U ni ted Stat es v. R i c har ds on , 76 4 F . 2d 15 14 , 15 27 (11th C i r. 19 85 ) ( expl ai ni ng that“ [o] nce a de f e nda ntha s f

a i l e d t o m a ke apr ope rpr e tr i a l r e que s tf ors uppr e s s i on, the o p p o r tu n ity is w a iv e d u n le s s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n ts r e lie f f o rg o o d c a u s e s h o w n ” ) . A l tho ug h the re cord dem on stra t es thatT ush o bj ec t ed t o t es t i m on y a ttri al abouts t a t e m e nt s he m a de t o of f i c e r s s hor t l y a f

t e rhi s a rr e s ta nd on the f ol l ow i ng da y , be c a us e he di d notf i l e am ot i on t o s uppr e s s s uc h s t a t e m e nt s be f or e tr i a l a nd ha s nota s s e r t e d good c a us e f orthi s f a i l ur e , w e c onc l ude tha the ha s w a i ve d the r ig h t to a r g u e th a t h is p o s t- a rr e s t s ta te m e n ts w e r e in a d m is s ib le . See Fe d . R. Cr i m. P . 1 2 ( e ) ; R i c har ds on , 764 F . 2d a t1527. T he r e f or e , w e do nota ddr e s s w he the rthe d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in a llo w in g th e a d m is s io n o f th e s e s ta te m e n ts .In Bo nn e r v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 adopted a s binding pre cedent all of the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to October

1, 1981. 4 Motion f orM is tr ial W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e f us a l t o gr a ntam i s tr i a l ba s e d on ac om m e nt r e g a r d in g ad e f

e n d a n t’s r ig h t to r e m a in s ile n t f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v . Ch a s ta in , 1 9 8 F .3 d1 3 3 8 , 1 3 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . “I t is w e ll e s tab lis h e d th a t a p r o s e c u to rc a n n o t c o m m e n t o n ad e f e n d a n t’s p o s t- Mi r anda si l ence t o i m peac h excul pat ory t es t i m on y on the grou nd thatthe defendantdi d n otexpl ai n h i s c on du ct atthe t i m e of hi s a rr es t . ” U ni te d State s v . D odd , 11 1 F . 3d 86 7, 86 9 (11 th C i r. 1997) ( c i t i ng D o

y le v . O h io , 4 2 6 U .S . 6 1 0 , 9 6 S . C t. 2 2 4 0 , 4 9 L . E d . 2 d 9 1 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ) .

“ A c om m e nti s de e m e d t o be ar e f e r e nc e t o ade f

e nda nt ’ s s i l e nc e i f

i tw a s the pr os e c ut or ’ s m a ni f

e s ti nt e nt i on t o r e f

e rt o the de f

e nda nt ’ s s i l e nc e ori f

i tw a s of such a c hara ct erthatthe j ury w ou l d n atural l y a nd nece ss ar i l y und er st and i tt o b e a com m enton a def

endant ’ s s i l ence . ” I

d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . D e t e rm i ni ng w he the ragove rnm e nt ’ s s t a t e m e ntaboutade f e nda nt ’ s s i l e nc e i s ha rm l e s s e rr or

“ r e qui r e s a n e xa m i na t i on of the f a c t s , the tr i a l c ont e xtof the e rr or , a nd the prej ud i ce cr ea t ed there by as j ux t aposed agai nstthe stre ng th o f the evi dence of [the] defe nd ant ’ s gui l t . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . Me n e s e s - D a v ila , 58 0 F . 2d 88 8, 89 0 (5th C i r. 1 9 7 8 ) ; se e a l

so U ni ted Stat es v. Mi l l er , 255 F . 3d 1282, 1286 ( 11th C i r . 2001) 15

(co n cl u d i n g th ata p ro secu t o r’ s co m m en t i n g attri al ab o u ta d efen d an t ’ s p o st -arrest si l en ce w as h arm l ess w h en th e p ro secu t o r d i d n o tfo cu s o n th e o ffi cers’ t est i m o n y, the defendantdi d n ott es t i fyattri al , so “ hi s def ense i nv ol ved n o excul pat ory s t ory w ith w h ic h h is p o s t- Mi r anda s ile n c e w a s c o m p a r e d ,” a n d th e e v id e n c e o f h is g u ilt w as strong ). H ere, th e reco rd d em o n strat es th atth e g o v ern m en td i d n o th av e a “ m an i fest in te n tio n ” a t tr ia l to r e f

e rto T u s h ’s s ile n c e a f

te rh is a rr e s t. See D odd , 11 1 F . 3d at 869. F ur the rm or e , i n l i ghtof the ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l of T us h’ s gui l t , a nd the f

a c ttha tT us h di d nott e s t i f y a ttr i a l , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g am is tr ia l. See Me n e s e s - D a v ila , 580 F . 2d a t890. R eq u est to Ca l l W it n ess W e r e v ie w e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U ni te d State s v . R ange , 9 4 F .3 d 6 1 4 , 6 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . “I f it ap p e a r s th a t a w itn e s s in te n d s to c la im th e [ F if th A m e n d m e n t] p r iv ile g e a s to e s s e n tia lly a ll qu es t i on s, the courtm ay , i n i t s di sc re t i on , re fuse t o al l ow hi m t o t ake the st and. ” U n i ted S ta tes v. L a co u tu re , 49 5 F . 2d 12 37 , 12 40 (5th C i r. 19 74 ). F urtherm ore,

“ [n] ei ther s i de has the ri gh tt o b enef i tfr om any i nfer ence s the j ury m aydraw s i m pl y f r om the w i tne s s ’ a s s e r t i on of the pr i vi l e ge e i the ra l one ori n c onj unc t i on w i th q uest i on s thathave been pu tt o h i m . ” I d. ( c i t i ng i nt er a lia N

am et v. U ni ted6

Stat es , 37 3 U . S . 17 9, 18 6, 18 9, 83 S . C t . 11 51 , 10 L . E d. 2d 27 8 (19 63 )) . In thi s c as e, because the di stri ctcourtw as ful l y a w ar e thatthe i nd i vi du al w hom T us h w a nt e d t o c a l l a s aw i tne s s w oul d i nvoke he rF i f th A m e ndm e nt pri vi l ege t o any qu es t i on as ked o f heratT ush’ s tri al , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ct c o u r t a c te d w ith in its d is c r e tio n in r e f u s in g to a llo w T u s h to c a ll th is w itn e s s . See L a co u tu re , 4 9 5 F .2 d a t 1 2 4 0 . Fir e a rm s Te s tim o ny A s d is c u s s e d , w e r e v ie w e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . See R ange , 94 F . 3d a t620. F e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 403 pr ovi de s tha t“ [ a ] l though r e le v a n t, e v id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d if its p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b s ta n tia lly outw e i ghe d by the da nge rof unf a i rpr e j udi c e , c onf

us i on of the i s s ue s , or m is le a d in g th e ju ry . . . .” F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 3 . E x c lu d in g e v id e n c e p u r s u a n t to R u le 4 0 3 is a n “e x tr a o r d in a ry r e m e d y w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld in v o k e s p a r in g ly ,” s tr ik in g th e b a la n c e in f a v o ro f a d m is s ib ility . U

ni ted Stat es v. T

i no co , 304 F . 3d 1088, 1120 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . M or e ove r , w e c ons i de rthe e vi de nc e i n que s t i on i n al i ghtf a vor abl e t o a dm i s s i on a nd m i ni m i z e a ny undue p r e ju d ic ia l im p a c t w h ile m a x im iz in g its p r o b a tiv e v a lu e . I d. I n a ddi t i on, w e ha ve expl ai ned that“ subst ant i al deal er s i n n ar cot i cs keep fi re arm s on thei r pre m i se s a s t o o l s o f th e trad e al m o stt o th e sam e ex t en tas th ey k eep scal es, g l assi n e b ag s,7

cutt i ng equi pm ent , and o ther narc ot i c e qu i pm ent . ” U ni ted Stat es v. A lvarez , 755 F . 2d 83 0, 84 9 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). B ec ause T ush’ s f

i re arm s c an be vi ew ed as t oo l s of hi s i l l egal narc ot i cs ac t i vi ty, w e c on cl ud e thatt es t i m on y abo utthe fi re arm s f ou nd i n h i s apartm entw as p r o b a tiv e o f

h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e c h a r g e d n a r c o tic s o f f e n s e s . See A lvarez , 755 F . 2d a t849. T he r e f

or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a l l ow i ng te s tim o n y ab o u t T u s h ’s f ir e a rm s . E n h an c e m e n t

f orFir e arm P os s e s s ion W e rev i ew th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ap p l i cat i o n o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es de no vo , w h ile f

a c tu a l f in d in g s a r e r e v ie w e d f

o rc le a re rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v. Cra w f o rd , 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 77 -78 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). S ec t i on 2D 1. 1(b)(1) provi des th a t f o rad e f e n d a n t w h o s e b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l w a s c a lc u la te d u n d e rth a t s e c tio n , a tw o-l evel enhancem entappl i es i f a“ dang er ou s w eapo n (i ncl ud i ng a f i re arm ) w as p o s s e s s e d . . . .” U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e c o m m e n ta ry to § 2 D 1 .1 e x p la in s : T he enhancem entfor w eapo n p osse ss i on re fl ec t s the i ncre as ed dang er of vi ol e nc e w he n drug tr a f f i c ke r s pos s e s s w e apons . T he a dj us tm e nt s h o u ld b e ap p lie d if

th e w e ap o n w a s p r e s e n t, u n le s s it is c le a r ly i m pr obabl e tha tthe w e apon w a s c onne c t e d w i th the of f e ns e . F or e x a m p le , th e e n h a n c e m e n t w o u ld n o t b e ap p lie d if th e d e f e n d a n t, a rr e s te d a t h is r e s id e n c e , h a d a n u n lo a d e d h u n tin g r if le in th e c lo s e t. I d. a tc m t . n. 3. M or e ove r , the de c i s i on of w he the rt o i m pos e a§ 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1)8

e nha nc e m e nti nvol ve s atw o- s t a ge de t e rm i na t i on: T he gove rnm e ntha s the bur de n unde r§ 2D 1. 1 t o de m ons tr a t e the p ro x i m i ty o f th e fi rearm t o th e si t e o f th e ch arg edo ffen se b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e . I f

the gove rnm e nti s s uc c e s s f ul , the e v id e n tia ry b u r d e n s h if

ts to th e d e f

e n d a n t to d e m o n s tr a te th a t a c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e w e ap o n a n dth e o f f e n s e w a s c le a r ly i m prob abl e. U n ite d S ta te s v . A u da in , 254 F . 3d 1286, 1289 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . I n U n ite d S ta te s v . H

a ll , 46 F . 3d 62 , 63 -64 (11 th C i r. 1995) , w e c onc l ude d tha t , w he n s e nt e nc i ng ade f e nda ntf orm a r i j ua nai m por t a t i on, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n app l yi ng the § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1) enhancemen tw here a hand gu n w as foun d i n the defendant ’ s bedroom dres se r, and o ther “ drug -r el at ed obj e c t s , ” s uc h a s s c a l e s , pl a s t i c ba gs c ont a i ni ng c oc a i ne r e s i due , a nd al a r ge a m ountof

c a s h, w e r e a l s o f

ound i n the be dr oom . B e c a us e c onve r s a t i ons concerni ng the defendant ’ s m ar i j uana i m po rt at i on had o cc urre d i n h i s r es i dence, the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y appl i e d the e nha nc e m e ntf orpos s e s s i on of

ada nge r ous w e ap o n . I

d. a t64. T ush h as no tpo i nt ed t o any evi dence s ug gest i ng thata c on nect i on betw ee n th e f ir e a rm s f o u n d in h is b e d r o o m c lo s e t a n d h is n a r c o tic s o f f e n s e s w a s c le a r ly im p r o b ab le . T o th e c o n tr a ry , b e c a u s e h e r e c e iv e d th e d e liv e ry o f k e ta m in e a t h is apa r tm e nta nd s t or e d othe rna r c ot i c s , di gi t a l s c a l e s , a nd pl a s t i c ba gs the r e , i ti s not

“ c l e a r l y i m pr obabl e ” tha tthe r e w a s ac onne c t i on be tw e e n hi s ha ndguns a nd9

a m m u n itio n a n d h is n a r c o tic s o f f e n s e s . See U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 c m t. n . 3 ; H a ll , 46 F .3 d at 6 3 -6 4 . T h er ef

o re , th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errin en h an cin g T u sh ’s s e nt e nc e f

orpos s e s s i on of

ada nge r ous w e apon. Con c lu s ion F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, w e affi rm T u sh ’ s co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces. AF F I RME D.